#IKGScienceBlog

Conference report “Why Muslims? Current Scientific Observations and Challenges on Anti- Muslim Attitudes and Racism”

2024-01-08T17:12:25+01:00

Conference report “Why Muslims? Current Scientific Observations and Challenges on Anti- Muslim Attitudes and Racism” by Dr. Isabell Diekmann. Click here: Link for report

Teaching Experience at King’s College London (UK)

2023-03-13T11:14:01+01:00

Teaching Experience at King’s College London (UK)

On 1 February, I cut my birthday cake in the evening and packed my suitcase straight away, because a teaching visit to the School of Education, Communication & Society (Faculty of Social Science & Public Policy), King's College London in the UK (funded by the EU’s ERASMUS+ programme) was scheduled for February (see picture 1). Before I start, I would like to mention that I have a very positive attitude towards London and the UK in general and feel at home here every time. Exactly 10 years ago I also had an Erasmus-funded study stay at the University of Southampton at the School of Psychology - at that time I already knew that I have a strong connection to the country and the people here. Now, after 10 years, I was back in the country, this time not as a student but as a guest lecturer.

My teaching content at KCL included the areas of migration, diversity, and discrimination in Germany. My teaching visit was based in the department of the Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE) programme in the School of Education, Communication & Society.¹The PGCE programme leader is Dr. Simon Coffey, Reader in Language Teaching. The following section (taken from the homepage) explains the PGCE most precisely and best: “The King's PGCE is an initial teacher training (ITT) programme leading to Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) for teaching in secondary schools (ages 11-16). The committed team of PGCE tutors provide a clear, thoughtful, and critical introduction to teaching, drawing on leading education research carried out at King's. The programme is rated as outstanding by Ofsted and is the prime choice for those who want to reach the highest levels of success in the teaching profession. We strongly welcome applications from members of black and minority ethnic communities.“²

Before my teaching stay, I had already received a schedule from my colleague Dr. Christina Richardson (Senior Lecturer in Language Education) on how I could best be involved in the research group and teaching. I immediately noticed in the plan that the team had put a lot of thought into how I could best feel comfortable and welcome and had created many opportunities for me to be embedded in the team in the short time and the many activities in which I could participate. My first day was very enriching and the sun greeted me right at the stop where I had to get off - after crossing the Waterloo Bridge (see picture 2), Christina welcomed me in front of the Waterloo Campus entrance. Already in the first meeting, I had felt a very welcome and pleasant atmosphere and Christina handed over a gift on behalf of the colleagues: I had received the beautifully colorful KCL scarf with souvenirs (see picture 3). At this point- many thanks to the team. On the first day, we also had an International Lunch, and I got into a detailed exchange with the students in a relaxed atmosphere. I was immediately struck by how interested and brilliant the students were. They were very open and interested in the topics like migration and discrimination as well as the educational processes in Germany and asked many interesting questions. I immediately noticed that the students all get very first-class teaching here. The time during my teaching stay was also very well filled - with teaching, activities, and talks.

An insight I can give, is my participation in the anti-racism reading group discussion with PGCE colleagues and colleagues from the ‘ECS Race Equality Reading Group’. Together, chapter by chapter and during lunch, we reflected on and discussed the following text: “Anti-racism framework for Initial Teacher Education/Training: Global Literature Review”.³ I also noticed during my teaching visit that different places can enrich teaching: one day we visited the famous British Film Institute (BFI), located next to the faculty, with Dr. Simon Coffey and the students, and used a film session in the Language Classrooms to design a cooperative day of teaching with a BFI staff member. What impressed me here was that students can experience top-notch teaching with high-quality tools and excellent materials, and directly transform the knowledge they experience there as well. I liked Simon's teaching style - he took every input from the students and motivated and positively encouraged them. I also noticed that he gives the students a lot of suggestions on how to make their way from studies to professional life - what aspects can help them. On another day, together with Dr. Rachel Aukett (Senior Lecturer) and the students, I visited the National Theatre (again located right next to the faculty). Here we used the space to create the lessons. Again, I felt that the students were excellently prepared for their future work and experienced top-class teaching. Rachel is a very positive lecturer, here I have also been able to directly feel that her positive aura and enthusiasm is directly transferred to the students. With the German colleague Angélique Arts (Teacher of German), who has now lived in London for many years, I have had a super enriching exchange - Angélique is a true creative wonder regarding the use of authentic materials in teaching and teaching methods. With Dr. Christina Richardson, we worked with students to create the Discussion Group,“Decolonizing the Curriculum”. Here we read and discussed Lisa Panford's text “Race and Racism in Secondary Modern Foreign Languages”⁴ and found space for reflection and exchange together. From Christina, I learned how self-evaluation and learning journeys can be embedded in teaching in creative and smart ways. Christina is also the editor of the “English as an Additional Language” (EAL) Journal “National Association for Language Development in the Curriculum” (NALDIC).⁵ When she told me about NALDIC, I felt how interdisciplinary and diverse Christina’s experiences in research and teaching are: We exchanged research ideas on the link between language and migration, and she offered to write an article for the journal on this topic. A highlight was also that I was allowed to give a talk and workshop one afternoon on the topic: Belonging and Equivalency (see picture 5). Many colleagues around the faculty were invited by Dr. Christina Richardson. During the lecture, I presented the project results of our project ZuGleich “Belonging and Equivalency in Germany” (funded by Stiftung Mercator to Prof. Andreas Zick at the Institute for Interdisciplinary Research on Conflict and Violence at Bielefeld University) and afterward classified and discussed them together with the colleagues and the students. The enriching discussion showed that we need cross-cultural research projects here (especially between UK and Germany) on the issues of belonging and equity to empower ethnic and marginalized minorities and groups and to understand in a more comprehensively their challenges and experiences on different levels. Afterward, many messages reached me from colleagues at KCL and one sentence I took away the most (from Dr. Jane Jones, Senior Lecturer in Education): “...and please, my new friend, stay in touch with me.” In my eyes, this brief glimpse into the phrase expresses a lot about my stay and the great hospitality of the KCL staff.

During my teaching stay, I unfortunately received very sad news from my home country in Turkey. The earthquake also shook me deeply because Turkey is the home of my parents and I feel very rooted there - even though I was born and raised in Germany. My colleagues, but also the students showed a lot of solidarity, and we did a ‘Minute of Silence and Remembrance’ together for the victims in Turkey and Syria .

Since the beginning of the organization for the teaching stay, everything has come together so ‘easily’, like pieces of a puzzle that you quickly put together. On the part of Bielefeld University, it helped that the Faculty of Educational Science (especially the administration and the ERASMUS team) and the International Office took care of all the organizational steps for me very well and always answered very quickly when I had queries. They did an excellent job of organizing everything for me on an administrative level. On the part of the host institute, the openness and friendliness and the flawless administration of the International Office and the department helped me. As a preparatory measure, my Teaching Certificate ‘Professional Teaching Competence for Universities’ (which I had already completed at the Center for Teaching and Learning at Bielefeld University)⁶certainly helped me and when I just got started - I was sure what I wanted to teach about and had planned everything. However, I was always open if something should change or be modified - I had communicated this with my colleagues beforehand. After I got back to Germany I stayed in contact with Christina, and how I could participate in the online version of the Anti-racist reading groups. Christina has been a very reassuring and friendly colleague – I felt that I was very lucky to have a colleague directly who welcomed me with open arms and kept academic and personal contact with me afterward. Of course, I am very happy to be able to continue participating in the reading groups and will continue to be active here. I will miss my walks after teaching because the university was so well and centrally located. I could always take a little walk right under the London Eye by the river after work (see picture 6).

I recommend my colleagues to consider a teaching stay abroad as part of their teaching, even if it is only for a short time. The scientific exchange, getting to know other teaching methods and the enrichment that comes with it, and the exchange with international students is worth it to leave your own comfort zone. A big thank you to Dr. Christina Richardson, Dr. Simon Coffey, Dr. Jane Jones, and the many colleagues at KCL, as well as a big thank you to my PhD supervisor Prof. Dr. Andreas Zick, who also provided great support to make this path possible.

[1] See https://www.kcl.ac.uk/study/postgraduate-taught/courses/pgce-modern-foreign-languages

[2] See https://www.kcl.ac.uk/ecs/pgce

[3] See https://www.ncl.ac.uk/mediav8/institute-for-social-science/files/Global%20Literature%20review%20-%20final.pdf#page=25

[4] See https://www.all-languages.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Lisa-Panford.pdf

[5] See https://naldic.org.uk/publications/eal-journal/

[6] See https://www.uni-bielefeld.de/einrichtungen/zll/

Picture 1

Description: View of the main street in the entrance area of the Waterloo Campus (Credit: Zeynep Demir)

Picture 2

Description: Morning walk across the Waterloo Bridge to the Waterloo Campus (Credit: Zeynep Demir)

Picture 3

Description: Gift from colleagues - the colorful KCL scarf (matching my diversity themes) (Credit: Zeynep Demir)

Picture 4

Description: Entrance area of the National Theatre in London (Credit: Zeynep Demir)

Picture 5

Description: Opening slide from my presentation for the talk “Belonging and Equivalency in Germany (Credit: Zeynep Demir, Presentation)

Picture 6

Description: View during an evening walk after work (Credit: Zeynep Demir)

Zeynep Demir (MSc) is a psychologist, researcher and lecturer. She works in the research group Socialization (Prof. Andreas Zick's Lab) at the Faculty of Educational Science and she is member of the project “ZuGleich -Belonging and Equivalency” funded by Stiftung Mercator, at the Institute for Interdisciplinary Research on Conflict and Violence (IKG) at Bielefeld University. Her research focuses on migration, acculturation, discrimination, racism, and diversity. As part of her academic service work, she is currently the Chair of the Equality Commission at the Faculty of Educational Science.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The blogs represent the authors' point of view.

Ein klassensensibler Virus

2021-04-20T13:47:33+02:00

Ein klassensensibler Virus

von Maximilian Wächter & Baris Ertugrul

Wenn es darum geht, welche sozialen Gruppen besonders von der Covid-19-Pandemie betroffen wird, erscheinen in deutschen Medien immer wieder Beiträge, welche sich um das Thema ‚Migrationshintergrund‘ drehen. Dabei wird oft spekuliert, ob nicht ein Überhang von Menschen mit Migrationsbiografie festzustellen sei, die an Covid-19 erkranken bzw. auf Intensivbetten liegen. Daten darüber werden in Deutschland nicht gesammelt (bzw. nicht veröffentlicht), was den Spekulationen keinesfalls einen Abbruch tut. Für ein höheres Covid-19-Risiko werden dann (angebliche) kulturelle Eigenarten (oder treffender: Unarten) herangezogen. So sollen »Zuwanderer« etwa einen besonders starken Familienzusammenhalt haben (so zuletzt die Neue Westfälische), was wiederum mehr persönliche Kontakte und deswegen mehr Infektionen bedeute.

Allenfalls als Randnotiz wird erwähnt, dass auch die »soziale Lage«, ein Codewort für schwache ökonomische Verhältnisse und Armut, etwas damit zu tun haben könnte. Dabei ist es ein bekanntes Datum, dass prekäre Lebensbedingungen ein primärer Risikofaktor für Krankheit im Allgemeinen sind, und dieser für Covid-19 im Besonderen ebenfalls in Rechnung zu stellen ist. Internationale Studien zeigen, dass dieser Umstand ungebrochen aktuell ist: verschiedene Forscher:innen sind auf Basis ihrer Daten zu dem Schluss gekommen, dass sich Menschen in der ökonomischen Prekarität deutlich häufiger mit Covid-19 infizieren als andere Personen. Wenn sie ebenfalls einen Zusammenhang mit der Migrationsgeschichte der Betroffenen feststellen, kommen sie zu dem Schluss, dass dieser zu einem großen Teil oder komplett durch den Zusammenhang zwischen Migrationshintergrund und ökonomischer Prekarität erklärt wird. Wenn Personen mit Migrationshintergrund häufiger an Covid-19 erkranken, liegt dies also primär daran, dass diese soziale Gruppe häufiger in ökonomisch prekären Verhältnissen leben müssen als andere.

Inwiefern jene aktuellen internationalen Ergebnisse und Einsichten sich ebenfalls auf den lokalen Kontext Bielefeld übertragen lassen, ist dabei Anlass einer kleinformatigen Studie gewesen. Hierzu wurden öffentlich bereitgestellte Daten der Stadt Bielefeld auf diese Frage hin analysiert. Bielefeld wird offiziell in 72 sogenannte statistische Bezirke eingeteilt. Für jeden dieser Bezirke stehen Daten bezüglich des Ausmaßes an Covid-19-Infektionen, der Anzahl an Personen mit Migrationshintergrund und – als Indikator für eine ökonomisch prekäre Lebenssituation – die Anzahl an Hartz IV-Bedarfsgemeinschaften pro Bezirk zur Verfügung.

Ein erster Zugriff zeigt an, dass es tatsächlich ein Zusammenhang zwischen Migrationshintergrund und dem Level an Corona-Infektionen auf der Ebene der statistischen Bezirke gibt – und dies in beide Richtungen. In den Bezirken, welche bisher am wenigsten von Covid-19-Infektionen betroffen sind, ist der Anteil an Personen mit Migrationshintergrund um 10 Prozentpunkte niedriger als im Gesamtdurchschnitt Bielefelds. Umgekehrt ist der Anteil dieser Bevölkerungsgruppe um 10 Prozentpunkte in den Kreisen höher, welche bisher die größte Anzahl an Infektionen aufweisen.

Dieser Befund für sich zeichnet jedoch ein unvollständiges Bild des Infektionsgeschehens. Denn die Frage, warum dieser Zusammenhang besteht, ist damit nicht geklärt. Ein weiterer Blick in die Daten gibt hier Aufschluss. Wie bereits benannt zeigen verschiedene Studien deutlich, dass Armut ein Risikofaktor für eine Infektion mit Covid-19 darstellt. Um den Anteil an Personen in prekären ökonomischen Verhältnissen zu erfassen, wird auf die Anteile an Hartz IV-Bedarfsgemeinschaften pro Bezirk zurückgegriffen. Es zeigt sich, dass beide Anteile in den Bezirken Bielefelds extrem eng miteinander zusammenhängen: Je mehr Menschen mit Migrationshintergrund in einem Bezirk leben, desto höher ist auch der Anteil an Hartz IV-Bedarfsgemeinschaften. (In der Sprache der Statistik: Die Pearson-Korrelation zwischen beiden Variablen beträgt 0.78.) Damit wird statistisch nahegelegt, dass sich nur ein Zusammenhang zwischen Covid-19-Infektionen und Migrationshintergrund zeigt, weil dieser ebenfalls stark mit dem eigentlichen Risikofaktor, einer prekären sozio-ökonomischen Lebenssituation, zusammenhängt. Und mehr noch: Wenn mittels statistischer Verfahren der Einfluss des ökonomischen Risikos heraus gerechnet wird, verschwindet der scheinbare Zusammenhang zwischen Migrationshintergrund und Covid-19-Infektionen vollständig. Betrachten wir die am wenigsten von Covid-19 betroffenen Bezirke unabhängig von der ökonomischen Lage ihrer Bewohner:innen, entspricht der durchschnittliche Anteil an Personen mit Migrationshintergrund dem allgemeinen Durchschnitt Bielefelds. In den am stärksten von Covid-19 betroffenen Bezirken liegt der Anteil an Personen mit Migrationshintergrund nur noch 2 Prozentpunkte über dem allgemeinen Durchschnitt; ein Wert, welcher sich durch die übliche statistische Ungenauigkeit erklären lässt und kein Anzeichen für einen bedeutsamen Effekt ist.

Insgesamt lässt sich vor dem Hintergrund der verfügbaren Daten also zeigen, dass der Effekt des Migrationshintergrunds vollständig auf die ökonomische Ungleichheit zwischen den verschiedenen statistischen Bezirken in Bielefeld zurück geht. Nicht Migration, sondern ökonomische Ungleichheit ist ein wichtiger Treiber dieser Pandemie. Wenn es darum geht, die weitere Ausbreitung von Covid-19 zu verhindern, legen die uns zur Verfügung stehenden Daten nahe, sich also nicht über »kulturellen Eigenheiten« den Kopf zu zerbrechen. Gegenüber Migration ist das Virus indifferent, sensibel bleibt es der Natur nach aber gegenüber klassen- oder schichtspezifische Ungleichheiten. Das mag dann nicht nur virologisch eine wichtige Erkenntnis sein. Es zeigt auch umgekehrt an, wie resilient Rassismus gegenüber Krisen bleibt.

Anhang: "Nicht Migration, sondern ökonomische Prekarität erhöht das Covid-19-Risiko in Bielefeld - Analysen der Zusammenhänge zwischen dem Anteil an Personen mit Migrationshintergrund, dem Anteil an Hartz IV- Bedarfsgemeinschaften und der Anzahl an Covid-19- Infektionen in den Bezirken der Stadt Bielefeld"

Kontakt: maximilian.waechter@uni-bielefeld.de

Caring Masculinities als Gegenstand der Konflikt- und Gewaltforschung?

2021-02-17T13:03:09+01:00

Caring Masculinities als Gegenstand der Konflikt- und Gewaltforschung?

(see English version below)

Geschlecht und damit verbunden Männlichkeit wird innerhalb der (feministischen) Geschlechterforschung als etwas begriffen, das sich in einem ständigen Wandel befindet und somit an spezifische historische Kontexte gebunden ist. Aktuell lässt sich im deutschsprachigen Raum beobachten, dass Männlichkeiten stärker mit Betreuungs- und Sorgeaufgaben verbunden werden, als es ein traditionelles Männlichkeitsbild zulässt. Care wird zunehmend als elementar zur Herstellung von Gleichstellung erachtet und somit auch hinsichtlich Männlichkeit stärker diskutiert (vgl. beispielsweise BMBF 2019). Im Kontext privater Sorgearbeit lassen sich neue Entwürfe von Väterlichkeit und somit Männlichkeit finden (vgl. Lengersdorf & Meuser 2016) und auch in der professionell bzw. öffentlich geleistete Fürsorge wird mehr Männlichkeit für Erziehungs- und Bildungsinstitutionen gefordert (vgl. für einen Überblick Rose & May 2014; Hurrelmann & Schulz 2012). Innerhalb der kritischen Männlichkeitsforschung wird dieser Transformation von Männlichkeit Rechnung getragen und unter dem Begriff Caring Masculinities solche Männlichkeiten verhandelt, die sich als kritischer Gegenentwurf zur hegemonialen Männlichkeit verstehen lassen, indem sie durch die Übernahme von fürsorgenden Tätigkeiten und der Ablehnung von Dominanz mit dem »klassischen« Männlichkeitsbild brechen. Vor allem die Überlegungen von Karla Elliot (2016) sind für die Konzeption von Caring Masculinities wegweisend, da sie mit ihrer Zusammenführung von kritischer Männlichkeitsforschung und feministischer Forschung zu Care einen ersten theoretischen Entwurf vorlegt. Dabei denkt Elliot (2016: 240) fürsorgende Männlichkeiten als „masculine identities that rejects domination and its associated traits and embrace values of care such as positive emotion, interdependence, and relationality“. Besonders aufgrund einer wahrgenommenen Abwesenheit von Dominanz wird im Diskurs um fürsorgende Männlichkeiten oftmals die Annahme geteilt, dass über den Weg der Transformation männlicher Subjektivierungsweisen ein Beitrag zur Demokratisierung des Geschlechterverhältnisses und weiter der Postwachstumsgesellschaft geleistet werden kann (für einen Überblick Heilmann, Korn & Scholz 2019). Fürsorgende Männlichkeiten werden also mit der Hoffnung verbunden, Teil eines feministischen Wandels hinsichtlich gesellschaftlicher Lebensweisen und Verhältnisse sein zu können, indem Männlichkeit auf hierarchisierende Praktiken verzichtet. Dies wird auch an außerwissenschaftlichen Diskussionen um fürsorgende Männlichkeiten deutlich, wie sich beispielsweise an der Zeitschrift an.schläge veranschaulichen lässt: Im Herbst 2019 titelte sie auf ihrem Deckblatt, dass feministischer Wandel fürsorgende Männer braucht und machte Caring Masculinities zum Schwerpunkt dieser Ausgabe.

Entgegen der Hoffnung der Demokratisierung des Geschlechterverhältnisses verweisen (empirische) Erkenntnisse jedoch auch darauf, dass diese fürsorgenden Männlichkeiten zur Aufrechterhaltung und Transformation hegemonialer Männlichkeit und männlicher Hegemonie beitragen können (vgl. Pangritz 2019, Pangritz 2020). An dieser Stelle setzt meine Dissertation an, die mit Hilfe der Figur des „strafenden Pädagogen“ (Pangritz 2020a; Diewald 2018) aufzeigen möchte, dass fürsorgende Männlichkeiten sich über die Verknüpfung zu abwertenden und antidemokratischen Einstellungsmuster und Praxen herausbilden können. In diesem Sinne kann gerade Care als Ventil für dominanzbasierte und antidemokratische Einstellungsmuster und Praktiken genutzt werden. Innerhalb meiner Dissertation zeigt sich dies vor allem über einen Mediationseffekt: hegemoniale Männlichkeitsvorstellungen zeigten nicht nur positive Zusammenhänge zur Abwertung durch Feminisierung, also der Abwertung und Deprofessionalisierung weiblicher Fachkräfte und ihrem Vorgehen, und einer punitiven Erziehungsorientierung, vielmehr stellen hegemoniale Männlichkeitsvorstellungen das Scharnier zwischen diesen beiden Abwertungsmechanismen dar (ausführlicher Pangritz 2019). Die Ergebnisse verweisen also darauf, dass mit der Neujustierung von Geschlecht die bei fürsorgenden Männlichkeiten stattfindet, auch eine Transformation männlicher Hegemonie stattfinden kann. In diesem Zusammenhang wird gerade über die Integration weiblich konnotierter Eigenschaften in die Männlichkeitskonstruktion die Anpassungsfähigkeit hegemonialer Männlichkeit gewährleistet, indem sie neue Kooperationen aushandelt und neue Wege findet, um ihre hegemoniale Position begründen zu können (Pangritz 2020).

Es lohnt sich also für die Konflikt- und Gewaltforschung fürsorgende Männlichkeiten vertiefend in den Blick zu nehmen, da sich über die Transformation von Geschlecht auch Macht- und Herrschaftsmechanismen wandeln können. Auch wenn auf dem ersten Blick ein Bruch mit der gesellschaftlich akzeptierten Lebensweise von Männlichkeit(en) vollzogen wird, kann eine tiefergehenden Analyse auf die damit zusammenhängende Ambivalenz aufmerksam machen. Dann wird eben diese ‚Hybridität‘ von Männlichkeit sichtbar, die trotz gleichstellungsorientierter Tendenzen auch zur Aufrechterhaltung eines hierarchischen und damit konfliktären Geschlechterverhältnisses beitragen kann. Abschließend bleibt da eigentlich ‚nur‘ noch eine Frage für die Konflikt- und Gewaltforschung offen: Wie gestaltet sich Männlichkeit, die zur Demokratisierung des Geschlechterverhältnisses beiträgt?

(Link z. Rahmenpapier: https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/record/2948734)

********

Caring Masculinities as a Topic of Conflict and Violence Research?

Within (feminist) gender studies, gender and masculinity are understood as something that is in a constant state of change and therefore linked to specific historical contexts. Currently, it can be seen in the German-speaking world that masculinities are more strongly associated with care tasks than a traditional image of masculinity allows. Care is more often considered elementary for the creation of equality and is thus also discussed more strongly in terms of masculinity (cf. BMBF 2019). In the context of private care work, new designs of fatherhood and thus masculinity can be found (cf. Lengersdorf & Meuser 2016) and also in professionally or publicly provided care, more masculinity is demanded for educational institutions (cf. for an overview Rose & May 2014; Hurrelmann & Schulz 2012). Within critical masculinity research, this transformation of masculinity is taken into account and such masculinities are negotiated under the term Caring Masculinities, which can be understood as a critical concept to hegemonic masculinity by breaking with the "classical" image of masculinity through the assumption of caring activities and the rejection of dominance. In particular, the reflections of Karla Elliot (2016) are guiding for the conceptualization of Caring Masculinities, as she presents a first theoretical outline by bringing together critical masculinity studies and feminist research on care. In doing so, Elliot (2016: 240) thinks of caring masculinities as "masculine identities that rejects domination and its associated traits and embrace values of care such as positive emotion, interdependence, and relationality." Especially due to a perceived absence of domination, the discourse around caring masculinities often shares the assumption that via the path of transforming masculine modes of subjectivation a contribution is made to the democratization of gender relations and further to the post-growth society (for an overview Heilmann, Korn & Scholz 2019). Caring masculinities are thus associated with the hope of being part of a feminist change regarding social ways of life and relations by masculinities avoiding hierarchizing practices. This is also evident in non-academic discussions of caring masculinities, as exemplified by the journal an.schläge: In fall 2019, it headlined on its cover that feminist change needs caring men and made Caring Masculinities the focus of this issue.

However, contrary to the hope of democratizing gender relations, (empirical) findings also point to the fact that these same caring masculinities can contribute to the maintenance and transformation of hegemonic masculinity and male hegemony (cf. Pangritz 2019, Pangritz 2020). This is where my dissertation comes in, using the figure of the "punishing pedagogue" (Pangritz 2020a; Diewald 2018) to show that caring masculinities can emerge via connections to devaluing and anti-democratic attitudinal patterns and practices. In this sense, care in particular can be used as a way to express dominance-based and anti-democratic attitudinal patterns and practices. Within my dissertation, this is particularly evident via a mediation effect: hegemonic conceptions of masculinity not only showed positive connections to devaluation through feminization (the devaluation and deprofessionalization of female professionals and their actions) and a punitive parenting orientation, but rather, hegemonic conceptions of masculinity represent the connecting link between these two devaluation mechanisms (Pangritz 2019 in more detail). The findings thus point to the fact that with the reconfiguration of gender that takes place in caring masculinities, a transformation of masculine hegemony can also take place. In this context, it is precisely through the integration of female connotated traits into the construction of masculinity that the adaptability of hegemonic masculinity is ensured by negotiating new collaborations and finding new ways to be able to justify its hegemonic position (Pangritz 2020).

Thus, it is worthwhile for conflict and violence research to take a deeper look at caring masculinities, as the transformation of gender can also transform mechanisms of power and domination. Even if at first look a break is made with the socially accepted way of life of masculinity(ies), a deeper analysis can draw attention to the ambivalence connected with it. This makes precisely this 'hybridity' of masculinity visible, which despite equality-oriented tendencies can also contribute to the maintenance of hierarchical and therefore conflicting gender relations. In conclusion, more or less 'only' one question remains open for conflict and violence research: How is masculinity shaped that contributes to the democratization of gender relations?

Literatur/References:

an.schläge – Das Feministische Magazin (2019): Caring Masculinities. Feministischer Wandel braucht fürsorgliche Männer. Ausgabe 3.

BMBF – Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (2019): Gender Care Gap – ein Indikator für Gleichstellung. Online: https://www.bmfsfj.de/bmfsfj/themen/gleichstellung/gender-care-gap/indikator-fuer-die-gleichstellung/gender-care-gap---ein-indikator-fuer-die-gleichstellung/137294 (Stand: 11.2.2021).

Diewald, Irmgard (2018): Männlichkeiten im Wandel. Zur Regierung von Geschlecht in der deutschen und schwedischen Debatte um ‚Männer in Kitas’. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.

Elliot, Karla (2016): Caring Masculinities: Theorizing an emerging Concept. In: Men and Masculinities 19 (3), S. 240-259.

Heilmann, Andreas/ Korn, Aaron/ Scholz, Sylka (2019): Vom Wachstum zur Fürsorge? Männlichkeiten in der Transformation kapitalistischer Wachstumsgesellschaft. In: Scholz, Sylka & Heilmann, Andreas (Hrsg.): Caring Masculinities? Männlichkeiten in der Transformation kapitalistischer Wachstumsgesellschaft. München: Oekom Verlag, S.13-42.

Hurrelmann, Klaus & Schultz, Tanjev (2012): Jungen als Bildungsverlierer. Brauchen wir eine Männerquote in Kitas und Schulen? Weinheim & Basel: Beltz Juventa.

Lengersdorf, Diana/Meuser, Michael (2016): Involved Fatherhood. Source of New Gender Conflicts? In: Crespi, Isabella/Ruspini, Elisabetha (Hg.): Balancing Working Family in Changing Society: The Father’s Perspective. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, S. 149-161.

Pangritz, Johanna (2020): Strafende Pädagogen – fürsorgend und doch hegemonial? Brauchen wir wirklich mehr Männlichkeit? Ein kritischer, quantitativer Beitrag zum Verhältnis von hegemonialen Männlichkeitsvorstellung, Feminisierung und Punitivität. Bielefeld: Universität Bielefeld.

Pangritz, Johanna (2019): Fürsorgend und doch hegemonial? Eine empirische Untersuchung zum Verhältnis von Männlichkeit, Feminisierung und Punitivität in pädagogischen Kontexten. In: GENDER. Zeitschrift für Geschlecht, Kultur und Gesellschaft 11 (3), S. 132-149.

Rose, Lotte & May, Michael (Hrsg.) (2014): Mehr Männer in die Soziale Arbeit!? Kontroversen, Konflikte und Konkurrenzen. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.

Bildrechte: Johanna Pangritz

Dr.‘in Johanna Pangritz studierte Erziehungswissenschaft und Gender Studies an der Universität Bielefeld, wo sie anschließend auch im Bereich der erziehungswissenschaftlichen Geschlechterforschung promovierte. Derzeit ist sie wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin an der FernUniversität in Hagen im Fachbereich empirische Bildungsforschung. Ihre Forschungsschwerpunkt sind feministische Theorie, kritische Männlichkeitsforschung, empirische Bildungs- und Sozialisationsforschung mit dem Fokus auf soziale Ungleichheiten sowie Diskriminierungs- und Vorurteilsforschung.

Kontakt: johanna-maria.pangritz@fernuni-hagen.de

Dr.'in Johanna Pangritz studied Educational Science and Gender Studies at the Bielefeld University, where she also completed her doctorate in the field of educational gender research. She is holding a position in the work unit “ empirical eduaction research” at the FernUniversity in Hagen. Her research focuses on feminist theory, critical studies on men and masculinity, empirical educational and socialization research with a focus on social inequalities, and discrimination and prejudice research.

Contact: johanna-maria.pangritz@fernuni-hagen.de

***Im IKGScienceBlog äußern sich Forscher*innen des IKG zu aktuellen gesellschaftlichen Themen aus der Sicht der Konflikt- und Gewaltforschung. Mit dem Blog soll die gesellschaftliche Debatte über aktuelle Konfliktthemen gefördert werden. Die Blogs stehen für die Sichtweise der Autor*innen.

In the IKGScienceBlog, IKG researchers comment on current social issues from the perspective of conflict and violence research. The blog aims to promote the social debate on current conflict issues. The blogs represent the authors' point of view***

Studying peace in conflict zones: A reflexive assessment of the role of researchers

2020-09-07T14:19:10+02:00

Studying peace in conflict zones: A reflexive assessment of the role of researchers

Aydin Bayad & Asli Aydemir

Peace is a contested concept in social science as in everyday life. For instance, the social representation of peace is much more diversified compared to war (Sarrica, 2007; Sarrica & Wachelke, 2012). Besides, Cortright (2008) recently argued in his seminal work that in fact, peace refers to a process, not a ‘state’. He suggests using a more operational term to define a process whereby societies move towards a peaceful state, such as peace-making or peace-building. Yet, the pathway towards peace is not free from obstacles or problems and it is not always linear. For instance, there have been methodological, ethical and security issues even for researchers in regions where peace is desired utmost importance: conflict zones (Haer & Becher, 2012; Kacen & Chaitin, 2006: Sriram, et al. 2009; Wood, 2006). In line with these efforts, a recent book entitled ‘Researching Peace, Conflict, and Power in the Field: Methodological Challenges and Opportunities’ from Springer Peace Psychology series, brings together a collection of the field experiences of researchers around the world. Together with Aslı Aydemir, we contributed to this collection a chapter focusing on changes in our role as a researcher, with a reflexive assessment during a non-linear peacebuilding process in Turkey commonly referred as the “Resolution Process”. In this blog post, we want to summarize the chapter to make it more accessible and to discuss the insights presented.

Phase 1: Before the conflict

The Turkish-Kurdish conflict has a long, multi-layered history ranging from ethnic discrimination to armed conflict (Ergin, 2014; Güneş, 2018). After the formation of the secular Kemalist regime, the elites’ systematic restriction of ethnic minorities’ access to political and economic power, along with Kurds’ political action, led to a civil war concentrated mostly in Kurdish-majority southeast Turkey (Başer, et al., 2017). After the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi, AKP) came to power in Turkey in 2002, a Resolution Process (RP) which supposedly aimed to resolve the conflict, was started as part of accession negotiations with the European Union.

We, as authors, opened our eyes to this open political atmosphere as early career academics who were in favour of the resolution process. We were totally embedded in our personal, functional, disciplinary and institutional contexts (Wilkinson, 1988; Parker, 1994) which led us towards an idealistic expectation to understand what does peace mean for the younger generations. We thus initiated a project called ‘the social representation of peace among secondary education students’ with support and promotion from our colleagues. The optimistic motivation of the research team even determined the scope of the project. For instance, the topic was neither linked to our PhDs nor did we have probable financial support; nevertheless, we put together an ambitious, overarching project which needed years to be accomplished. Yet, the open political atmosphere, as well as the newly achieved positive connotations of the RP, enabled smoothness in other related mechanisms such as institutional facilitation, communication and decision-making. Also, the participants were observed to be more open to unconditionally speaking about topics formerly considered as “taboo”.

This phase can be characterized by ‘academic armor,’ defined as “physical and psychological means through which professional academics protect their expert positions or jurisdictions” (Lerum, 2001, p. 470). We were all young middle-class researchers collecting data about one of the most important topics on contemporary Turkey, and we dealt with data collection process without any obstacles. Our positions as “scientists” or “psychologists” were acknowledged by the parties we were in contact with. Also, the expectation of our colleagues and supervisors about emotional detachment (e.g., being distanced from the research topic) was the leading implicit principle to sustain the research as scientific (Lerum, 2001), which would become impossible soon after.

Phase Two: Emergence of Conflict

After the collapse of RP, the conflict escalated: several suicide attacks took place, targeting mainly Kurdish civilians in several demonstrations and public gatherings (Başer et al., 2017). On the other hand, the nonviolent organization of the Kurdish movement experienced a significant shift toward a militant movement (Üstündağ, 2019). Different sources stated that between 335,000 and half a million people had been displaced in the Kurdish region between July 2015 and December 2016 (AMNESTY, 2016; OHCHR, 2017). Moreover, according to the International Crisis Group, approximately 2,000 people – mainly Kurds – were killed in security operations (Mandıracı, 2016). The heavy clashes and tension served to deepen the insecurity about ethnic divisions and led to a loss of formal and public support of the RP (Tekdemir et al., 2018).

The escalation of the conflict and the tense political atmosphere started to affect our field research, our motivation for conducting the project, as well as the outcomes of the study. The positive connotations toward peace vanished within months in the research team’s institutional network. For instance, one of the teachers from a Kurdish province who handed out our surveys in her classes faced an administrative investigation by Turkish authorities on charges of “inciting the public to hatred and hostility.” Therefore, we decided to stop data collection in public schools to avoid more potential harm to our participants and contacts. As a consequence, our research field narrowed down to the western regions where the conflict was less salient, resulting in an overrepresentation of cities such as İstanbul (Bayad et al., 2020).

The second incident that affected our social position as researchers/academics was a petition campaign in 2016 entitled “We will not be a party to this crime,” calling for an end to the long-term curfews (e.g., Academics for Peace, AfP), that five members of the research team including the authors, signed. The reaction of the AKP and its allies to AfP resulted in a never-ending forensic investigation and economic exclusion that would later be referred to as “civil death” by signatories (see, Aktas, et al., 2019). The hostile political atmosphere also affected our social position within and outside academia as well as impacting the project. Our legitimacy as scientists was lost firstly because academics were delegitimized on a national level and the discipline of social sciences was more specifically under attack (Sözeri, 2016). Witnessing the derogation of academics at all career stages led our whole research team to feel disempowered and alone since we were mostly early-career researchers without any institutional support anymore. We lost our emotional detachment from the research via shifting our focus from a macro, abstract, overarching peace towards the safety in our immediate environment and relations which we were already closely attached. In other words, our “academic armor” was broken so that all the socio-political developments affected not only our academic but also our personal identities (Lerum, 2001).

Phase three: After the conflict

Self-censorship was institutionalized under the threat of dismissals and other possible threats from authorities (Tekdemir et al., 2018). Discussing or researching certain concepts, such as peace, peacebuilding or negotiations, was criminalized (Başer et al., 2017) by shutting down TV channels (e.g., Peace TV), banning public gatherings (e.g., International Day of Peace, remembrance of Ankara Peace Meeting) and removing monuments (e.g., Peace Monument in Mardin, see Oral, et al., 2018). A most relevant example for us was a self-censorship case of the Turkish Psychological Association’s (TPD) national psychology congress in 2016. The conference, entitled “Peace and Psychology,” was rejected by the university originally slated to host it (TPD, 2016).

The attacks on the concept of peace, academia, and specifically AfP signatories, also led to a counter-reaction from many fields of civil society including journalists, actors, unions, political parties and so on (Abbas & Zalta, 2017). In line with this counter-reaction, the petitioners started calling themselves ‘Peace Academics,’ which had a side effect that challenged the academic armor: political engagement as a separate and relatively personal part of our social lives came to the forefront of our academic identity. We devoted more time and effort to constructing both emotional and material solidarity to protect ourselves against political attacks rather than carrying out research and academic duties. Furthermore, we started to take part in academic collectives that were being organized outside of the universities and mostly consisted of critical social scientists (see Acar & Coşkan, 2020; Erdem & Akın, 2019). At the end of phase three, our initial attempt to investigate the social representation of peace among secondary education students was no longer realistic due to lack of access to the field, decreasing motivation within the research team, restrictions on the concept of peace and financial obstacles.

Conclusion

Peace psychology research aims to “promote the nonviolent management of conflict and the pursuit of social justice” (Christie et al., 2001, p. 7). However, ironically, in the contexts where peace is most desirable, unfortunately, societal marginalization, political oppression and conflict also emerge (Cohen & Arieli, 2011; Haer & Becher, 2012; Kacen & Chaitin, 2006). Within such settings, not only conducting research but also the difficulty in finding motivation makes research even harder (Lerum, 2001; Moss et al., 2019). Additionally, our reflexive analysis shows how fragile and interconnected personal and professional identities are, under both open and oppressive political atmospheres. We began as peace psychology researchers during an optimistic period of time and later transformed to peace seeker activists devoting their time and energy to collective academic action, which led to changes in our motivation, research strategy as well as the results of our research. The reflexive analysis of our role during a fluxional political context reveals that researcher identity per se is a part of the research process whereby personal, functional, disciplinary and institutional dynamics are at play (Wilkinson, 1988; Parker, 1994). Thus, a reflexive self-awareness is a fundamental part of field research, especially in peace psychology.

References

Abbas, T., & Zalta, A. (2017). ‘You cannot talk about academic freedom in such an oppressive environment’: Perceptions of the We Will Not Be a Party to This Crime! petition signatories. Turkish Studies, 18, 624–643.

Acar, Y. G., & Coşkan, C. (2020). Academic activism and its impact on individual‐level mobilization, sources of learning, and the future of academia in Turkey. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. 30, 388-404.

Aktas, V., Nilsson, M., & Borell, K. (2019). Social scientists under threat: Resistance and self-censorship in Turkish academia. British Journal of Educational Studies, 67, 169-186.

AMNESTY (2016). Turkey: Curfews and crackdown force hundreds of thousands of Kurds from their homes. Amnesty International, Retrieved November 20, 2018, from: https://bit.ly/2tLufDD

Başer, B., Akgönül, S., & Öztürk, A. E. (2017). “Academics for Peace” in Turkey: a case of criminalising dissent and critical thought via counterterrorism policy. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 10, 274–296.

Bayad, A., Sakin, E., & Cesur, S. (2020). Orta öğretim öğrencilerinde barışın sosyal temsilleri [Social representation of peace among secondary education student]. Turkish Journal of Psychology.

Christie, D. J., Wagner, R. V., & Winter, D. D. (2001). Peace, conflict, and violence: Peace psychology for the 21st century. Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.

Cohen, N., & Arieli, T. (2011). Field research in conflict environments: Methodological challenges and snowball sampling. Journal of Peace Research, 48, 423–435.

Cortright, D. (2008). Peace: A history of movements and ideas. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Erdem, E., & Akın, K. (2019). Emergent repertoires of resistance and commoning in higher education: The solidarity academies movement in Turkey. South Atlantic Quarterly, 118, 145-163.

Ergin, M. (2014). The racialization of Kurdish identity in Turkey. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37, 322-341.

Güneş, C. (2018). The Kurds in a new Middle East: The changing geopolitics of a regional conflict. Switzerland: Springer.

Haer, R., & Becher, I. (2012). A methodological note on quantitative field research in conflict zones: get your hands dirty. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 15, 1-13.

Kacen, L., & Chaitin, J. (2006). “The Times They are a Changing” 1 : Undertaking Qualitative Research in Ambiguous, Conflictual, and Changing Contexts . The Qualitative Report, 11, 209-228.

Lerum, K. (2001). Subjects of desire: Academic armor, intimate ethnography, and the production of critical knowledge. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 466-483.

Mandıracı, B. (2016, July 20). Turkey’s PKK Conflict: The Death Toll. International Crisis Group, Retrieved November 20, 2018, from: https://bit.ly/2EKRgsq

Moss, S. M., Uluğ, Ö. M., & Acar, Y. G. (2019). Doing research in conflict contexts: Practical and ethical challenges for researchers when conducting fieldwork. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 25, 86-99.

OHCHR (2017, February). Report on the human rights situation in South-East Turkey, July 2015 to December 2016, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Retrieved November 20, 2018, from: http://www.refworld.org/docid/58c66faf4.html

Oral, S., Altunok, Ö., & Epik, S. (2018). Türkiye'de Sansür ve Otosansür: Eylül 2016-Aralık 2017 [Censorship and Self-censorship in Turkey: December 2016 - December 2017], Susma Sansür ve Otosansüre karşı Platform. Retrieved November 19, 2019, from: https://bit.ly/34Hhois

Parker, I. (1994). Reflexive research and the grounding of analysis: Social psychology and the psy‐complex. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 4, 239-252.

Sarrica, M. (2007). War and peace as social representations: Cues of structural stability. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 13, 251–272.

Sarrica, M., & Wachelke, J. (2012). Make (?) Not War! Are the Social Representations of Peace and War Antonyms? In S. Gibson & S. Mollan (Edt.), Representations of peace and conflict (pp. 163-186). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sözeri, E. E. (2016). Two Petitions Two Academia: Turkish Loneliness and the Universal Values. Retrieved November 20, 2018, from: https://bit.ly/2PLCQP4

Sriram, C. L., King, J. C., Mertus, J. A., Martin-Ortega, O., & Herman, J. (2009). Surviving field research: Working in violent and difficult situations. London: Routledge.

Tekdemir, O., Toivanen, M., & Başer, B. (2018). Peace Profile: Academics for Peace in Turkey. Peace Review, 30, 103–111.

TPD (2016, March 10). Call for Psychology Departments for the 19th National Psychology Congress! Retrieved January, 31, 2019 from: https://www.psikolog.org.tr/?Detail=1511

Üstündağ, N. (2019). The Kurdish Movement. In E. Özyürek, G. Özpınar & E. Altındiş (Eds.), Authoritarianism and resistance in Turkey (pp. 155-168). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

Wilkinson, S. (1988). The role of reflexivity in feminist psychology. Women’s Studies International Forum, 11, 493-502.

Wood, E. J. (2006). The ethical challenges of field research in conflict zones. Qualitative Sociology, 29, 373-386.

Aydın Bayad, MA., has completed his Master degree in Social Psychology at Istanbul University. Currently, he is a PhD candidate at Bielefeld University and associated researcher in the Institute for Interdisciplinary Conflict and Violence Research (IKG). His research focuses on ethnic identity formation, identity conflict, value change and peace psychology. He is continuing his research on transnational right-wing populism and maintenance of Turkish identity in Europe as a Hans Böckler Foundation fellow.

Contact: aydin.bayad@uni-bielefeld.de Institute for Interdisciplinary Research on Conflict and Violence / University of Bielefeld

Aslı Aydemir; MA., has completed her Master degree in Social Psychology at Istanbul University. While continuing her postgraduate education, she was working as a research assistant at Dicle and Istanbul Universities at the same time, but she was removed and banned from public service with a decree-law (no. 695) due to she is one of the signatories of the “We will not be a party to this crime!” petition. Now, she is a PhD candidate at İstanbul University and her research interests include women and elderly in the family interactions, ageism, elder rights, feminist gerontology and peace psychology.

Contact: aydemir.asli@hotmail.com Istanbul University/Social Psychology

In the IKGScienceBlog, IKG researchers comment on current social issues from the perspective of conflict and violence research. The blog aims to promote the social debate on current conflict issues. The blogs represent the authors' point of view.

Zeynep Demir & Aydin Bayad: "Das muslimische Leben in der Corona-Krise - Muslim life in the Corona crisis"

2020-08-11T12:16:27+02:00

Das muslimische Leben in der Corona-Krise

Zeynep Demir & Aydin Bayad

*** See English version below ***

“Wir können uns hier in Deutschland auf Expertinnen und Experten stützen, die zu den besten und angesehensten in der Welt gehören. Der erste Test zum sicheren Nachweis einer Corona Infektion wurde frühzeitig hier in Deutschland entwickelt und an unsere weltweiten Partner gegeben“ so der Gesundheitsminister Jens Spahn in der Regierungserklärung zur Corona Pandemie in Deutschland im März 2020 (BGM). Deutschland scheint im Kampf gegen das Coronavirus gut gerüstet zu sein - mit Corona-Warn-Apps, Hotlines für das Coronavirus, Informationskampagnen. Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel lobt das Verhalten der Bürgerinnen und Bürger - die Menschen in Deutschland hätten „verantwortungsvoll gelebt“ (Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung). Die deutschen Bürgerinnen und Bürger scheinen sich weitgehend an soziale Distanzierung, Kontaktsperren, Besuchsregeln, Quarantänemaßnahmen und möglichst auch an die Arbeit im Home-Office zu halten. In Zeiten der Corona-Krise stellt sich in der Berichterstattung über die Einhaltung wieder erneut die Frage der Integration. Die Frage lautet: „Werden sich die Muslime an die Vorschriften halten?“ (Die Tagespost am 25.4.2020). Die Göttinger Stadträtin Broistedt sprach von einem „unvernünftigen, unverantwortlichen Verhalten von Einzelpersonen“, die in Göttingen im Zusammenhang mit einer Zunahme von Corona Infektionen nach privaten Feiern des Islamischen Religionsfestes gespielt hätten. Demnach wurden mehrere hundert Personen unter Quarantäne gestellt und die Göttinger Schulen mussten schließen (Braunschweiger Zeitung am 2.6.2020). „Ist das Verhalten der Muslime, die sich in Neukölln versammelt haben, ein Zeichen mangelnder Integration? Ja - denn es war kein singuläres Ereignis“ (Die Tagespost am 25.4.2020). Aus sozialpsychologischer Sicht soll dieser Blogeintrag erklären, warum diese Frage nicht ohne weiteres mit einem Ja beantwortet werden kann.

Die deutsche Gesellschaft ist stark von kultureller und ethnischer Vielfalt geprägt. Als eine vielfältige und kulturell pluralistische Gesellschaft leben in Deutschland viele verschiedene ethnische Gruppen zusammen, unter ihnen bilden Muslime die zweitgrößte religiöse Gruppe und die größte Diaspora bilden die Türk*innen in Deutschland. Eine Möglichkeit, diese Vielfalt zu erforschen, besteht darin, die zugrundeliegenden Faktoren zu untersuchen, die das Zusammenleben von Menschen mit unterschiedlichem kulturellem Hintergrund hier erklären. Aus sozialpsychologischer und kulturvergleichender Perspektive kann hier das Akkulturationsmodell von Berry (1997) als theoretischer Rahmen zur Beantwortung der obigen Frage herangezogen werden. In Bezug auf die psychologische Akkulturation gibt es signifikante Unterschiede in der Art und Weise, wie Menschen akkulturieren (Arends-Toth & Van de Viver, 2003). Nach Berry (1997) können sich Menschen in dem Maße unterscheiden, in dem sie ihre Herkunftskultur beibehalten oder sich an die Aufnahmekultur anpassen. Auf der Gruppenebene wird zwischen zwei sozialen Kontexten unterschieden: Die Herkunftskultur und die Aufnahmekultur. In der Herkunftskultur werden die politischen, wirtschaftlichen und demographischen Bedingungen berücksichtigt. Im Kontext der Aufnahmekultur sind Grundorientierungen gegenüber denjenigen, die in das jeweilige Land einwandern, zu berücksichtigen. Neben politischen Positionen zur multikulturellen Gesellschaft und Einstellungen gegenüber bestimmten ethnischen Gruppen sind auch soziale Unterstützungssysteme von Bedeutung. Neben physischen und biologischen Veränderungen können bei Migrant*innen auch wirtschaftliche, soziale und kulturelle Veränderungen auftreten. Vor allem die Transnationalismusforschung hat gezeigt, dass Einwanderer tatsächlich eher in einem transnationalen sozialen Raum als in einer einzigen Gesellschaft leben (Amelina & Faist, 2008). Neuere sozialpsychologische Erkenntnisse über die Vermittlung von Botschaften an die Öffentlichkeit zeigen auch, dass Menschen dazu neigen, die Regeln zu befolgen, wenn die Botschaft klar ist und ein Gefühl von „wir“ erzeugen kann (Van Bavel et al. 2020). Im Umgang mit der Corona-Pandemie folgt die deutsche Mehrheitsgesellschaft den gesetzlichen Regeln - hier sehen wir eine "dem System/den Regeln folgen"-Mentalität (unidirektionaler kultureller Vergleich). In der muslimischen Minderheitsgesellschaft hingegen sehen wir eher eine „dem System/den Regeln vertrauen“-Mentalität (bidirektionaler kultureller Vergleich). Aussagen wie „Uns kann in Deutschland bestimmt nichts passieren“ kann diese Mentalität unterstreichen. Die Lebenssituation mit all ihren Facetten kann im Vergleich mit der Herkunftskultur stehen. Auch die Zahl der Todesfälle, das Gesundheitssystem oder das staatliche Handeln im Umgang mit der Corona-Pandemie können hier als Teil des Alltagslebens im Vergleich stehen. Der bidirektionale Vergleich dürfte in diesem Fall zu mehr Vertrauen in die Aufenthaltskultur führen. Denn „Hier kann uns bestimmt nichts passieren“ sind Aussagen, die unter eingewanderten Muslim*innen zu hören sind. So würden demzufolge die offiziellen Erklärungen über ein relativ sicheres System in Deutschland dazu führen, dass Zuwanderer*innen leicht der Norm ihrer Gemeinschaft folgen, die auf sozialen Bindungen und Netzwerken beruht. Aus empirischer Sicht müsste es nicht um den Grad mangelnder Integration gehen, sondern darum, ob sich die Erfahrung und Wahrnehmung des deutschen Systems mit all seinen Unterkategorien wie Gesundheitsversorgung, Bildungsangebote etc. von der der deutschen Mehrheitsgesellschaft unterscheidet. Im Umgang mit der Corona Pandemie stellt sich also eher die Frage: Haben Muslim*innen in Krisensituationen mehr Vertrauen in das (Gesundheits-)System und verhalten sich dementsprechend als die deutsche Mehrheitsgesellschaft? Definieren vor allem eingewanderte Muslim*innen, eine Krise anders als die einheimischen Deutschen? Ist die Botschaft an die Öffentlichkeit in Deutschland inklusiv genug, um über alle Unterschiede hinweg ein Wir-Gefühl zu erzeugen?

Alles in allem ist dieser Blog-Eintrag ein Versuch, das Verhalten der Muslim*innen in Deutschland während der Corona-Pandemie aus sozialpsychologischer Perspektive zu verstehen. Das muslimische Leben in Deutschland ist sehr vielfältig und heterogen, da es nicht die Muslime gibt. Die anhaltende Problematisierung der muslimischen Zugehörigkeit im Umgang mit der Corona-Pandemie im medialen Diskurs kann zu einer Homogenisierung und Essentialisierung von einer religiösen Gruppe führen. Wir wissen, dass man sich an die Regel hält, wenn die Botschaften wirksam genug sind, um ein „Wir-Gefühl“ zu erzeugen. Wenn jedoch für einige Gruppen die Botschaften nicht wirken, sollte dies implizieren, dass eine einfache Übersetzung der Botschaften für Einwanderer nicht ausreicht, da sie nicht in einer einzigen Gesellschaft leben. Es wäre wichtig - auch im medialen Diskurs – gesellschaftliche Fragen unter Berücksichtigung der multikulturellen und -religiösen Realität so zu formulieren, sodass das Zusammenleben bei der Suche nach Antworten nicht noch mehr gespalten wird.

Muslim life in the Corona crisis

“Here in Germany, we can rely on experts who are among the best and most respected in the world. The first test for the reliable detection of a corona infection was developed here in Germany at an early stage and given to our worldwide partners,” said Health Minister Jens Spahn in the government declaration on the corona pandemic in Germany in March 2020 (BGM). Germany seems to be well equipped in the fight against the corona virus - with corona warning apps, hotlines for the coronavirus, information campaigns. Chancellor Angela Merkel praises the behavior of the citizens - people in Germany would have “lived responsibly” (Press and Information Office of the Federal Government). The German citizens seem to largely adhere to social distancing, contact blocks, visiting rules, quarantine arrangements and work in the home office if possible. In times of the Corona crisis, however, the question of integration is raised again in the reporting about compliance with the regulation. The question is “Will Muslims comply with the regulations?” (Die Tagespost on 25.4.2020). The city councilor Broistedt in Göttingen spoke of an “unreasonable, irresponsible behavior of individuals” who had played in connection with an increase in corona infections after private celebrations of an Islamic religious celebration in Göttingen. According to this, several hundred people were quarantined, and the schools had to close in Göttingen (Braunschweiger Zeitung on 2.6.2020). “Is the behavior of the Muslims who gathered in Neukölln a sign of lack of integration? Yes - because it was not a singular event.” (Die Tagespost on 25.4.2020). From a socio-psychological point of view, this blog entry aims to explain why this question cannot be easily answered with a yes.

German society is strongly influenced by cultural diversity and ethnic diversity. As a diverse and culturally plural society, many different ethnic groups live together in Germany and among them, Muslims form the second-largest religious group and the largest diaspora is made up of Turks in Germany. One way to explore this diversity is to examine the underlying factors that explain how people from different cultural backgrounds live together here. From a socio-psychological and cross-cultural perspective, the acculturation model of Berry (1997) can be used here as a theoretical framework for answering the above question. In terms of psychological acculturation, there are significant differences in the way people acculturate (Arends-Toth & Van de Viver, 2003). According to Berry (1997), individuals may differ in the degree to which they maintain their culture of origin or adapt to the culture of the host country. At the group level, a distinction is made between two social contexts: The culture of origin and the host culture. Political, economic, and demographic conditions are considered in the culture of origin. In the context of the host culture, basic orientations towards those who immigrate to the respective country are to be considered. In addition to political positions on multicultural society and attitudes towards certain ethnic groups, social support systems are of importance. In addition to physical and biological changes, economic, social, and cultural changes can occur among immigrants. Above all, transnationalism research revealed that, immigrants live in a transnational social space, not in a single society (Amelina & Faist, 2008). Recent social psychological insights about messaging the public also show that people tend to follow the rules if the message is clear and can create a sense of ‘us’ (Van Bavel et al. 2020). In dealing with the Corona Pandemic, the German majority society follows the legal rules - here we see a “follow the system/rules” mentality (based on a unidirectional cultural comparison). In the Muslim minority society, however, we see a “trust the system/rules” mentality (based on a bidirectional cultural comparison). Statements such as “Nothing can happen to us in Germany” can emphasize this mentality. The life situation with all its facets can be compared with the culture of origin. The number of deaths, the health care system, or government action in dealing with the corona pandemic can also be compared here as a part of everyday life. The bidirectional comparison is likely to lead to greater trust in the culture of residence in this case. Because “Nothing can happen to us here” are statements that can be heard among Muslims who have immigrated. Thus, in the case of the following the official explanations about a relatively secure system in Germany, would lead immigrants to easily follow the norm of their communities which is based on social ties and networks. From an empirical point of view, the question would not have to be the degree of lack of integration, but whether the experience and perception of the German system with all its sub-categories such as health care, educational opportunities, etc. differ from that of the German majority society. Thus, in dealing with the corona pandemic the question is rather: Do Muslims feel more trust in the (health) system and behave accordingly than the German majority society in crisis situations? Do above all immigrated Muslims define a crisis differently than the native Germans? Does message the public in Germany is inclusive enough to create a sense of ‘us’ across all the differences?

All in all, this blog entry is an attempt to reflect upon the behavior of Muslims in Germany during the corona pandemic from a socio-psychological perspective. Muslim life in Germany is very diverse and heterogeneous, as there are no the Muslims. The continuous problematization of Muslim affiliation in the media discourse in dealing with the pandemic can increase the homogenization and essentialization of a religious group. We know that people are following the rule if the messaging strategy is effective enough to create a sense of ‘us’, however, if some groups do not make sense of messaging that should imply that a simple translation of the messages is not enough for immigrants because of the fact that they are not living in a single society. It would be important - also in the media discourse - to formulate social questions in consideration of the multicultural and religious reality so that living together is not divided even more in the search for answers.

Literatur /References:

https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/presse/reden/regierungserklaerung-coronavirus.html

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/angela-merkel-wir-haben-die-erste-phase-der-pandemie-hinter-uns-a-b81464e1-3bdb-4a24-8373-0b7269fe1e07

https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de/themen/coronavirus/ansprache-der-kanzlerin-1732108

https://www.die-tagespost.de/politik/aktuell/Berlin-Verhalten-von-Muslimen-waehrend-der-Corona-Krise;art315,207624

https://www.braunschweiger-zeitung.de/niedersachsen/article229234192/Corona-Ausbruch-in-Goettingen-was-geschah-in-der-Shisha-Bar.html

Arends‐Toth, J., & Vijver, F. J. V. D. (2003). Multiculturalism and acculturation: Views of Dutch and Turkish–Dutch. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(2), 249-266.

Amelina, A., & Faist, T. (2008). Turkish migrant associations in Germany: Between integration pressure and transnational linkages. Revue europeenne des migrations internationales, 24(2), 91-120.

Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46(1), 5- 34.

Van Bavel, J. J., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., ... & Drury, J. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 1-12.

Zeynep Demir, M.Sc., studierte Psychologie an der Universität Bielefeld, der University of Southampton und an der Universität Bremen. Sie arbeitet in der Arbeitseinheit "Sozialisation" an der Fakultät für Erziehungswissenschaft und ist assoziiertes Mitglied des von der Stiftung Mercator geförderten Projekts "ZuGleich - Zugehörigkeit und Gleichwertigkeit" und anderer Projekte in der IKG. Ihre Forschungsschwerpunkte sind Diskriminierung, Migration, Akkulturation und kulturvergleichende Psychologie.

Kontakt: zeynep.demir@uni-bielefeld.de / Institut für Interdisziplinäre Konflikt- und Gewaltforschung / Universität Bielefeld & Fakultät für Erziehungswissenschaft

Aydin Bayad, MA, hat seinen Master-Abschluss in Sozialpsychologie an der Universität Istanbul gemacht. Gegenwärtig ist er Doktorand an der Universität Bielefeld und assoziierter Forscher am Institut für interdisziplinäre Konflikt- und Gewaltforschung (IKG). Seine Forschungsschwerpunkte sind ethnische Identitätsbildung, Identitätskonflikte, Wertewandel und Friedenspsychologie. Als Stipendiat der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung setzt er seine Forschung zum transnationalen Rechtspopulismus und zur Erhaltung der türkischen Identität in Europa fort.

Kontakt: Aydin.bayad@uni-bielefeld.de / Institut für Interdisziplinäre Konflikt- und Gewaltforschung / Universität Bielefeld

Zeynep Demir, M.Sc., studied psychology at Bielefeld University, University of Southampton, and University of Bremen. She is holding a position in the work unit “Socialization” at the Faculty of Educational Science and she is associated member of the project “ZuGleich -Belonging and Equivalency” funded by Stiftung Mercator, and other projects in IKG. Her research focuses on discrimination, migration, acculturation and cross-cultural psychology.

Authors contact: zeynep.demir@uni-bielefeld.de / Institute for Interdisciplinary Research on Conflict and Violence /Bielefeld University & Faculty of Educational Science

Aydin Bayad, MA., has completed his Master degree in Social Psychology at Istanbul University. Currently, he is a PhD candidate at Bielefeld University and associated researcher in the Institute for Interdisciplinary Conflict and Violence Research (IKG). His research focuses on ethnic identity formation, identity conflict, value change and peace psychology. He is continuing his research on transnational right-wing populism and maintenance of Turkish identity in Europe as a Hans Böckler Foundation fellow.

Authors contact: Aydin.bayad@uni-bielefeld.de / Institute for Interdisciplinary Research on Conflict and Violence / University of Bielefeld

*** Im IKGScienceBlog äußern sich Forscher*innen des IKG zu aktuellen gesellschaftlichen Themen aus der Sicht der Konflikt- und Gewaltforschung. Mit dem Blog soll die gesellschaftliche Debatte über aktuelle Konfliktthemen gefördert werden. Die Blogs stehen für die Sichtweise der Autor*innen. ***

*** In the IKGScienceBlog, IKG researchers comment on current social issues from the perspective of conflict and violence research. The blog aims to promote the social debate on current conflict issues. The blogs represent the authors' point of view. ***