Social Tolerance in Mulitcultural Societies: A Survey of the Miyandoab Citizens

علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد

Article 4, Volume 16, Issue 1 - Serial Number 33, September 2019, Pages 89-133   

Document Type: علمی - پژوهشی

DOI: 10.22067/jss.v16i1.69008

Authors

Omid Ghaderzadeh^* ; Yousef Nasrollahi

University of Kurdistan

Abstract

Extended Abstract

Introduction

Dominant approaches in the Iranian civilization have always been accompanied by cultural tolerance and compromise. The case studied in this inquiry (Miandoab City) is a collection of cultural diversity due to its high level of immigration to the city as well as being located among three provinces. In the multiethnic and multicultural area where life went on peacefully until the past decade, there has often been a number of controversies between communities that resulted in military intervention. It has brought about signs of uncertainty and vulnerability with regards to social tolerance between various identities. Accordingly, the main research question in this study is: to what extent the people who belong to different religious cults tolerate others in this multiethnic, multicultural texture? What are the effective factors on the social tolerance of Miandoab citizens?

Review of Literature

A thorough review of the conducted studies regarding social tolerance illustrates that most of the studies carried out in Iran have focused on the political aspect of tolerance, using samples of University students (Serajzadeh et al., 2004; Share’pour & Khoshfar, 2002; Golabi & Rezaei, 2013; Shahryari et al., 2015) and citizens (Moghtadaei, 2010; Adibisadeh et al.,2014;Jalaeian Bakhshandeh & et al., 2018) social and civil aspects of tolerance should be addressed among ethnic and religious communities. Due to its multicultural nature, the City of Miandoab in West Azerbaijan Province is a good field to deconstruct tolerance among ethnic groups of Kurds and Turks and religions of Shiite and Sunni.Considering the multicultural nature of the society of Iran, the accomplished researches about tolerance, social distance, and cross-cultural sensitivities among ethnic communities are scarce and partial. Theoretical and experimental literature of tolerance has a sixty-year-old history (Mather & Tranby, 2014).
 In the modern society, tolerance is recognized as a civil, political virtue. Considering the theoretical approach of King (1975), Daren and Tranby (2014) and exemplar restriction of Elisabetta (2002), the notion of tolerance has been conceptualized within political, religious, identity, and behavioral dimensions.
According to theoretical and experimental studies by Mather and Tranby (2014), Golebiowska (1999), and Parillo and Donoghue (2005), social tolerance is influenced by contextual factors such as gender, religion, and ethnicity. These contextual factors contain macro structure conditions. According to Bourdieu (1986), the distributer of the whole capital (as a consequence of economic and cultural capitals) and capital structure (relative weight of economic and cultural capitals) within the social field determine the social position of actors, who are then considered to be at the same level as those similar to them in terms of the whole capital (Bourdieu, 1984). Putnam also asserted the role of social, economic, and cultural capitals in development and improvement of social tolerance (Putnam, 2001). Various forms of capitals are effective in mediating and expanding individuals’ insights and mental horizons, enhancing relativism and relative thinking, and shifting from exclusive to multiple identities. In fact, the rejection of multiplicity and refusing selection in identity related subjects can bring about a considerably unilateral and punitive perspective (Sen, 2016). Considering the exclusive nature of religious and ethnic identities along with the multicultural texture of the case (with Kurd and Turk ethnicities and faiths including Sunnis and Shiites), ethnic and religious orientations affect social tolerance. Accordingly, Miandoab citizens’ reconsideration of exclusive identities depends on the extent to which they enjoy social capitals and the range of their interactive field.

Method

In this study, cross-sectional survey method was used with two purposes including description and explanation. Questionnaires were used for data collection. The total population of the study included individuals between the ages of 18-50 living in Miandoab; the sample population was obtained as 313 individuals based on the Cochran’s formula. As the present study was focused on exploring social tolerance mediated by various forms of capitals, “multistage cluster” probability sampling was employed. In the case studied in this inquiry, Sunnis and Kurds mostly live in underprivileged and semi-privileged areas; given the sensitivity of the subject, only the literate and employed individuals consented to cooperate with the research. The validity of the questionnaire was improved through formal validity and confirmatory factor analysis.
 

Results and Discussion

Findings showed that the average social tolerance is higher among Kurds and Sunnis compared to Turks and Shiites. Furthermore, the average economic, social and cultural capitals and ethnic orientations were higher among Turks and Shiites relative to Kurds and Sunnis. The average religious orientation were higher in Kurds and Shiites than Turks and Sunnis. According to the results obtained from bivariate analyses, there is a positive, significant relation between social tolerance and various forms of capitals. Meanwhile, the most considerable influence is related to the cultural and economic capital variable. In addition, there is an inverse relation between religious and ethnic orientations and social tolerance. Among contextual variables, there is a positive, significant relation between education and social tolerance while there is an inverse, insignificant relation between the variable of age and social tolerance. Based on the results of regression analysis, independent variables explain 52.3% of changes in social tolerance.
The descriptive results showed that social tolerance of Miandoab citizens is at an average level. The results showed a positive, significant relation between enjoying various forms of capitals and social tolerance. In terms of ethnicity, the settlement of the majority of Kurds at marginal rural areas denote economic inequalities and undoubtedly, the absence of effective communicational exchange. Moreover, the results also showed an inverse, negative relation between ethnic and religious orientations and social tolerance. In such a situation, the tolerance of religious people and those who follow an exclusive, closed capital and act according to social norms and values are at a lower level.

Conclusion

Political tolerance among the examined sample is at an average level which could be a preventive factor; subsequently, legitimate freedoms should be recognized in terms of ethnicity and religion for improvement, while the means for their realization should be pragmatically provided as well. The low percentage of identity tolerance in the form of cults and the four main religions (The Righteous, Baha’i, Sunnis, and Shiites) rejecting one another represent the lack of communication and unity between the members of social groups examined in this study. Through increasing social connections among religions, the orientation of the generally tolerant subject of Daren and Tranby (2014) would be easier to attain, subsequently resulting in the maximum level of tolerance. In the behavioral aspect of social tolerance, engagement and enhancement of direct group projects would functionally bring gender-related sensitivities to public areas. The role of education institutes in influencing and imparting gender differences is of importance.
 

Keywords

Forms of Capital; religious orientation; Ethnic Orientation; Social Tolerance; Tolerance of Identity

References

1. ادیبی ‌سده، م.، رستگار، ی.، و بهشتی، ص. (1391). مدارای اجتماعی و ابعاد آن. رفاه اجتماعی، 50(1)، 353-380.

2. آذربایجانی، م. (1380). آزمون جهت‌گیری مذهبی اسلامی. تهران: پژوهشکده حوزه و دانشگاه.

3. ببران، ص.، و حکیمی، ش. (1392). آثار ارتباطات بین‌فرهنگی زوج‌های ایرانی و فرانسوی بر انگاره‌های ذهنی و کاهش حساسیت بین فرهنگی آن‌ها. مطالعات میان فرهنگی، 8(20)، 91-105.

4. پاتنام، ر. (1392). دموکراسی و سنت‌های مدنی (م. ت. دلفروز، مترجم). تهران: انتشارات روزنامة سلام.

5. پناهی، م. (1386). جامعه‌شناسی مشارکت سیاسی زنان. تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی.

6. جلائیان بخشنده، و.، قاسمی، و.، و ایمان، م. ت. (1397). تبیین جامعه‌شناختی رابطة اعتماد اجتماعی و مدارای اجتماعی مبتنی‌بر نظریة ساختاربندی گیدنز. توسعة اجتماعی، 12(4)، 7-32.

7. داودی، ع. ا. (1391). نقش حافظة جمعی در بروز منازعات قومی. مجلة جامعه‌شناسی ایران، 13(1 و 2)، 130-152.

8. دورکیم، ا. (1381). تقسیم ‌کار اجتماعی (ب. پرهام، مترجم). تهران: نشر قلم.

9. سراج‌زاده، س. ح.، شریعتی‌ مزینانی، س.، و صابر، س. (1383). بررسی رابطة میزان دینداری و انواع آن با مدارای اجتماعی. مجلة علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، 1(1)، 110-140.

10. سن، آ. ک. (1395). هویت و خشونت (ف. مجلسی، مترجم). تهران: نشر پایان.

11. شارع‌پور، م.، آزاد ‌ارمکی، ت.، و عسکری، م. (1388). بررسی رابطة سرمایة اجتماعی با مدارا دربین دانشجویان دانشکده‌های علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه‌های تهران و علامه طباطبایی. مجلة جامعه‌شناسی ایران، 10(3)، 68-94.

12. شارع‌پور، م.، و خوش‌فر، غ. (1381). رابطة سرمایة فرهنگی با هویت اجتماعی جوانان (مطالعة موردی: شهر تهران). نامة علوم اجتماعی، 10(3)، 133-147.

13. شهریاری، ا.، خلیلی، م.، و اکبری، ح. (1394). سنجش رابطة سرمایة اجتماعی با تساهل مذهبی. مجلة مطالعات و تحقیقات اجتماعی در ایران، 4(1)، 1-32.

14. عاملی، س. ر.، و مولایی، ح. (1388). دوجهانی‌شدن‌ها و حساسیت‌های بین‌فرهنگی (مطالعة موردی: روابط بین‌فرهنگی اهل تسنن و تشیع در استان گلستان). تحقیقات فرهنگی، 2(6)، 1-29.

15. عبداللهی، م.، و قادرزاده، ا. (1383). فاصلة قومی و عوامل مؤثر بر آن در ایران. علوم اجتماعی، 24(1)، 1-36.

16. فاین، ب. (1385). سرمایة اجتماعی و نظریة اجتماعی (م. ک. سروریان، مترجم). تهران: پژوهشکدة مطالعات راهبردی.

17. فرهادپور، م .(1387). عقل افسرده. تهران: انتشارات طرح ‌نو.

18. قادرزاده، ا.، و عبدالله‌زاده، خ. (1391). حساسیت بین‌فرهنگی در اجتماعات قومی در ایران: (موردمطالعه پیمایشی اقوام ترک و کُرد درقروه). مجلة علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، 9(1)، 119-153.

19. قاسمی، ی. م.، و نامدار جویمی، ا. (1393). بررسی رابطة سرمایة فرهنگی و سرمایة نمادین فرهنگی (مطالعة موردی: دانشجویان دانشگاه دولتی ایلام). مجلة فرهنگ ایلام، 44 و 45، 7-21.

20. کوئن، ب. (1386). درآمدی به جامعه‌شناسی (م. ثلاثی، مترجم). تهران: انتشارات توتیا.

21. گلابی، ف.، و رضایی، ا. (1392). بررسی تأثیر مشارکت اجتماعی بر مدارای اجتماعی دربین دانشجویان. مطالعات و تحقیقات اجتماعی در ایران، 2(1)، 61-86.

22. مقتدایی، ف. (1389). بررسی و سنجش میزان مدارای اجتماعی و عوامل اجتماعی و فرهنگی مؤثر بر آن (پایان‌نامة کارشناسی‌ارشد منتشرنشده رشتة جامعه‌شناسی). دانشگاه شهید چمران، اهواز، ایران.

23. مؤمنی، م.، ایمان، م. ت.، و رجبی، م. (1395). بررسی جامعه‌شناختی رابطة الگوهای دینداری با انواع مدارای اجتماعی دربین دانشجویان دانشگاه شیراز. فرهنگ در دانشگاه اسلامی، 6(3)، 321-340.

24. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction. New York, NY: Rutledge & Kegan Paul.

25. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Green Wood.

26. Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14-25.

27. capital: The impact on political tolerance attitudes. Political Research, 55(1), 7–25.

28. Cigler, A., & Joslyn, M. R. (2002). The extensiveness of group membership and social capital: The impact on political tolerance attitudes. Political Research Quarterly, 55(1), 7-25.

29. Côte, R. R., & Erickson, B. H. (2009). Untangling the roots of tolerance: How forms of social capital shape attitudes toward ethnic minorities and immigrants. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(12), 1664-1689.

30. Eisenstein, M. A. (2006). Rethinking the relationship between religion and political tolerance in the US. Political Behavior, 28(4), 327–348.

31. Elisabetta, A. (2002). Toleration as recognition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

32. Gibson, J. (2013). Measuring political tolerance and general support for pro-civil liberties policies notes, evidence, and cautions. Public Opinion, 77(s1), 45-68.

33. Golebiowska, E. A. (1999). Gender gap in political tolerance. Political Behavior, 21(1), 43-66.

34. Hodges, P., & Green, A., & Gurevich, L. (2001). Civil society, economic distress, and social tolerance. Sociological Forum, 16(2), 22-33.

35. Ikeda, K., & Richey, S.(2009). The impact of diversity in informal social networks on tolerance in Japan. British Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 655-668.

36. Karpov, V. (2002). Religiosity and tolerance in the United States and Poland. Journal For The Scientific Study of Religion, 41(2), 267-288.

37. King, P. (1957). Toleration. , New York: St. Martin’s Press .

38. Mather, D. M., & Tranby, E. (2014). New dimensions of tolerance: A case for a broader, categorical approach. Sociological Science, 1, 512-531.

39. Parrillo, V. N., & Donoghue, C. (2005). Updating the Bogardus social distance studies: A new national survey. The Social Science Journal, 42(2), 257–271.

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

41. Putnam, R. D. (2002). Democracies in flux: the evolution of social capital in contemporary society. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press

42. Quintelier, E. (2008). Does European citizenship increase tolerance in young people? European Union Politics, 9(3), 339-362.

43. Raihani R. (2014). Creating a culture of religious tolerance in an Indonesian school. South East Asia Research, 22(4), 541–560.

44. Sullivan, J., & Transue, J. (1999). The psychological underpinnings of democracy: A selective review of research on political tolerance, interpersonal trust, and social capital. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 625–650.

45. Vogt, P. (2002). Social tolerance and education, review of education, pedagogy, and cultural studies. London, England: Sage.