The Study of the Moderating Role of Social Capital on Ethnocentrism among Youths in Tabriz

علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

Article 2, Volume 14, Issue 2 - Serial Number 30, March 2018, Pages 57-84   

Document Type: Scientific-Research

DOI: 10.22067/jss.v14i2.56281

Authors

Mohammad Bagher Alizadeh Aghdam^{* 1}; Mohammad Abbaszadeh¹; Raviyeh Abedini²

¹Tabriz University

²University of Tabriz

Abstract

Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
The issue of inter-ethnic relations and interactions is considered as one of the most important social and political issues in multi-ethnic countries. The reason is that weakening or strengthening of relations between ethnic groups, and as a result, weakening or strengthening of national integrity in a country is affected by the intensity of the ethnic tendencies of different groups (ethnicity). Therefore, it is important to study such an issue in Iran, as a country that has hosted multiple ethnic groups with different cultural, linguistic and religious backgrounds for so long, and whose integration is largely due to the peace and coexistence of these ethnic groups.
The present article investigates the following issue. While the young population of the region faces a variety of new collective identities as a result of facing with the modern world and its implications including the spread of communication technologies, and the expansion of real and virtual communication between different cultures, this study seeks to investigate the degree of ethnicity among young people aged between 18 and 29, and to examine how important the role of social capital is.
2. Theoretical Framework
Putnam (2000), with a simple analogy, uses the terms intra-group and inter-group associations (Adibi Sadeh, Yazdkhasti, Rabbani Khorasgani, & Abbaszadeh, 2009) to distinguish between the two main types of social capital. The limited or old social capital, which is introduced as the social capital of interconnectedness, links members of homogeneous groups (from collective aspects, such as age, gender, ethnicity, religion, social class, etc.), and ultimately leads to the formation of exclusive, limited and specific identities (Gadgarzadeh & Shafienia., 2012). In contrast, new or bridge-forming social capital (i.e., intergroup) refers to social networks that link and connect unconnected individuals of different parts of society and cause unbiased and open identities (Putnam, 2000).
As outlined above, the topic of intra-group and inter-group social capitals has a relationship with the network concepts that emerged in sociology, during the 1970s. Granovetter’s (1973) work on the strength of weak ties is one of the good examples of network relationships. He distinguishes between strong ties, which is the bond between close friends with close connections, and weak links, which is the bond between a set of distant acquaintances (Granovetter, 1973, 1982). Indeed, Granovetter believed that the cohesive relationship among the members of the group leads to poor relations with members of foreign groups, and reduce social capital. In contrast, weak intra-group ties create relationships with outside individuals and groups, and thus create social capital (Salehi Amiri, 2006).
3. Method
This study is a cross-sectional survey. The statistical population consisted of all young people aged between 18 and 29 years old living in Tabriz. For this study, 384 out of 381551 individuals were selected as sample (Statistical Center of Iran in 2011). The instrument used to collect the data was a closed-ended questionnaire, whose validity and reliability were estimated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient with the help of a sample of 30 people before the final implementation.
4. Results
Findings show that the level of ethnicity in the society is moderate. Furthermore, the rate was significantly higher among men than women. The results and findings of the first research question showed that there is no significant relationship between social cohesion and ethnicity while the significance level of the other two dimensions of social capital (p

Keywords

ethnicity; Social cohesion; Social participation; Institutional trust; Young People

References

1. احمدلو، ح. و افروغ، ع. (١٣٨١). رابطۀ هویت ملی و هویت قومی در بین جوانان تبریز. مطالعات ملی، 4 (13)، ۱۴۴-۱۰۹.

2. ادﻳﺒﻲ ﺳﺪه، م.، ﻳﺰدﺧﻮاﺳﺘﻲ، ب.، رﺑﺎﻧﻲ ﺧﻮراﺳﮕﺎﻧﻲ، ع. و ﻋﺒﺎس‌زاده، ل. (۱۳۸۸). سنجش سرمایۀ اجتماعی میان گروهی (طیف سام). رﻓﺎه اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ، 10 (38)، ۲۲۰-۱۹۳.

3. ازکیا، م. و غفاری، غ. (۱۳۸۰). بررسی رابطۀ بین انسجام اجتماعی و مشارکت اجتماعی سازمان‌یافتۀ روستاییان در نواحی روستایی شهرستان کاشان. اقتصاد کشاورزی و توسعه، 9 (36)، ۲۰۶-۱۷۵.

4. افشار، س. (۱۳۹۳). بررسی میزان هوش فرهنگی و عوامل اجتماعی مؤثر بر آن در بین دانشجویان خوابگاهی دانشگاه تبریز. پایان‌نامۀ منتشرنشدۀ کارشناسی ارشد علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه تبریز. تبریز، ایران.

5. اﻓﻀﻠﯽ، ر. و ﺿﺮﻏﺎﻣﯽ، ب. (۱۳۸۸). تحلیل بنیادهای ﭘﺎﯾﺪار ﻫﻤﮕﺮاﯾﯽ و ﻣﺘﻐﯿﺮﻫﺎی اﻋﺘﺒﺎری ﺗﻬﺪﯾﺪ ﻗﻮﻣﯽ در ایران. پژوﻫﺶ‌ﻫﺎی ﺟﻐﺮاﻓﯿﺎی اﻧﺴﺎﻧﯽ، (70)، ۹۰-۷۷.

6. پورقلی، م. (١٣٨٦). قومیت‌گرایی در آذربایجان؛ ماهیت و عملکرد. حصون، (14)، ١۹٢-٢١۵.

7. رضایی، ا.، احمدلو، ح. (١٣٨٤). نقش سرمایۀ اجتماعی در روابط بین قومی و هویت ملی: بررسی جوانان تبریز و مهاباد. مطالعات ملی، (٢٤)، 34-7.

8. صالحی امیری، ر. (١٣٨۵). مدیریت تنوع قومی مبتنی بر نظریه‌های سرمایۀ اجتماعی. راهبرد، (٤۰). 50-27.

9. طرزی، ت.، علایی نسب، م. و عبدی اردیزی، ط. (١٣٨٨). بررسی نقش سرمایۀ اجتماعی در امنیت اجتماعی. مطالعات امنیت اجتماعی، (١٨)، 140-125.

10. علی‌پور، پ.، زاهدی، م. ج. و شیانی، م. (۱۳۸۸). اعتماد و مشارکت (بررسی رابطۀ بین اعتماد و مشارکت اجتماعی در شهر تهران). جامعه‌شناسی ایران، 10 (2)، ۱۳۵-۱۰۹.

11. قادرزاده ا. و شفیعی‌نیا، ع. (۱۳۹۱). تأثیر ساختار اجتماعی آموزش بر قوم‌گرایی دانشجویان. علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، (۵۹)، ۲۰۶-۱۶۵.

12. کتابی، م.، ادیبی سده، م.، قاسمی، و. و صادقی ده چشمه، س. (۱۳۸۹). سنجش اعتماد اجتماعی و عوامل مؤثر بر آن در مراکز شهرستا‌ن‌های چهارمحال و بختیاری. جامعه‌شناسی کاربردی، ۲۱ (۴)، ۱۲۲-۹۷.

13. گر، ت. (١٣۷۷). اقلیت‌ها، ملی‌گراها و برخوردهای سیاسی. مطالعات راهبردی. (مترجم: حمیدرضا کریمی)، (1)، 232-207.

14. گیدنز، آ. (١٣٨٤). چشم‌اندازهای جهانی. (مترجم: حمیدرضا جلایی‌پور). تهران: طرح نو.

15. محسنی تبریزی، ع. و هاشمی، م. ر. (۱۳۹۰). تأثیر اینترنت بر هویت اجتماعی دانش‌آموزان (مطالعۀ موردی: دبیرستان‌های شهر اراک در سال 1388-1387)، 3 (2)، 179-157.

16. ﻧﻮاﺑﺨﺶ، م.، ﻋﻄﺎر، س. و اﺑﻮاﻟﺤﺴﻨﯽ، ر. (۱۳۹۱). روﯾﮑﺮد ﺳﯿﺎﺳﺖ ﺷﺒﮑﻪ‌ای: ﺗﻌﻤﯿﻢ اﻧﺪﯾﺸۀ ﺳﺮﻣﺎیۀ اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ ﺑﻪ ﻋﺮصۀ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻞ دوﻟﺖ. ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎت توسعۀ اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﯽ اﯾﺮان، 4 (2)، ۲۱-۷.

17. یوسفی، ع. و اصغرپور ماسوله، ا. ر. (۱۳۸۸). قوم‌مداری و اثر آن بر روابط بین قومی در ایران. جامعه‌شناسی تاریخی، (۱)، ۱۴۴-۱۲۵.

18. Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 999-1023.

19. Gillinson, S. (2004). Why cooperate?: A multi-disciplinary study of collective action. Retrieved from https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/2472.pdf

20. Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201-233.

21. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.

22. Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (2002). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

23. Hooghe, M. (2008). Ethnocentrism. In In W. A. Darity (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (pp. 1-5). Philadelphia, PA: MacMillan Reference.

24. Lin, N., Ensel, W. M., & Vaughn, J. C. (1981). Social resources and strength of ties: Structural factors in occupational status attainment. American Sociological Review, 46(4), 393-405.

25. Lin, Y., & Rancer, A. S. (2003). Ethnocentrism, intercultural communication apprehension, intercultural willingness‐to‐communicate, and intentions to participate in an intercultural dialogue program: Testing a proposed model. Communication Research Reports, 20(1), 62-72.

26. Nesse, R. M. (2000). How selfish genes shape moral passions. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7(1-2), 227-231.

27. Neuliep, J. W., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The development of a U.S. and generalized ethnocentrism scale. Communication Research Reports, 14(4), 385-398.

28. Neuliep, J. W., Chaudoir, M., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). A cross‐cultural comparison of ethnocentrism among Japanese and United States college students. Communication Research Reports, 18(2), 137-146.

29. Parker, D., & Song, M. (2006). Ethnicity, social capital and the Internet. Ethnicities, 6(2), 178-202.

30. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

31. Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

32. Robinson, A. L. (2016). Ethnic diversity, segregation, and ethnocentric trust in Africa. Retrieved from http:// afrobarometer.org/ sites/ default/ files/ publications / Working %20 papers / afropaperno166 .pdf

33. Shaffer, M. A., Harrison, D. A., Gregersen, H., Black, J. S., & Ferzandi, L. A. (2006). You can take it with you: Individual differences and expatriate effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(1), 109-125.

34. Sinkovics, R., & Holzmüller, H. (1994, May). Ethnocentrism: A key determinant in international corporate strategy formulation? A workshop paper presented at EIBA International Conference, Warsaw, Poland.

35. Stone, W. (2001). Measuring social capital: Towards a theoretically informed measurement framework for researching social capital in family and community life. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

36. Sumner, W. G. (2014). Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usages, manners, customs, mores, and morals. Boston, MA: Create Space Independent.

37. Wrench, J. S., Corrigan, M. W., McCroskey, J. C., & Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2006). Religious fundamentalism and intercultural communication: The relationships among ethnocentrism, intercultural communication apprehension, religious fundamentalism, homonegativity, and tolerance for religious disagreements. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35(1), 23-44.