Amid Backlash to Immigration, Can Contact Smooth Relations between Groups of Diverse Backgrounds?

This transcript was generated using AI and may contain inaccuracies. If you notice an error, feel free to email [email protected].

CHAPTERS 

[00:01:35] Contact Theory: The Case for Meaningful Intergroup Interaction 
[00:05:59] Optimal Conditions for Effective Contact 
[00:10:49] Quality vs. Proximity 
[00:17:11] Barriers to Contact: Segregation and Economic Insecurity 
[00:22:27] Role of Media Narratives and Political Rhetoric 
[00:25:37] Practical Interventions: Structuring Inclusive Communities 
 

TRANSCRIPT

[00:00:05.09] 

Welcome back to World of Migration, a podcast from the Migration Policy Institute that delves into interesting global developments on immigration, immigrant integration, and humanitarian protection. My name is Natalia Banulescu-Bogdan. I am Deputy Director of MPI's International Program and I am your host today. Today we're diving into the growing backlash against immigration around the world. Everywhere we look, it feels like communities are increasingly divided on this topic. Declining industrial towns from Midwest America to Eastern Germany recognize the benefits of foreign workers to boost their economies and populations, but also bristle against how rapid population change is seen as making neighborhoods unrecognizable, rent unaffordable, schools overcrowded, and even increasing crime. And these perceptions can be powerful, whether or not they are fully rooted in evidence. Some politicians, of course, have skillfully exploited these fears, pitting groups against each other and scapegoating immigrants. The outcome is a fraying of the social fabric and a trend toward knee jerk restrictive policies. So the question today is, what tools do we have to rebuild social cohesion in a time when people are feeling very insecure and under threat, where it's tempting to blame newcomers for all the things that seem to be going wrong in our societies?

[00:01:35.01] 

The evidence is pretty clear that once these kinds of fears and prejudices set in, there's very little you can do with top down initiatives to try to persuade people to change their minds. But there is one simple intervention that is extraordinarily effective. And this is the idea of contact. The idea that when members of different groups, even groups that historically dislike one another or are experiencing conflict, when they interact in meaningful ways and build personal relationships, trust increases and prejudice decreases. But while the concept is simple, the implementation is not. But luckily, today we are joined by Dr. Linda Tropp. There's almost no one in the world who has thought more about this issue than she has. Linda is a professor of Social Psychology and Director of the Psychology of Peace and Violence Program at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. She is an expert in understanding how people from different social groups relate to each other, including people from different racial and ethnic groups and members of host society and immigrant communities. And she has worked tirelessly to put this evidence into practice, both in the U.S. And internationally. Linda, thank you so much for being here.

[00:02:54.10] 

Oh, thank you so much for having me.

[00:02:56.10] 

Okay, let's start with some basics. So the first question is, can you help us understand a little bit more about the relationship between diversity and intergroup conflict? We all live in multi-ethnic societies where there's always going to be a baseline of friction as different Groups negotiate shared spaces, shared resources. But it feels like we're experiencing something more than this on both sides of the Atlantic. You hear some people saying that there's too much diversity, that this diversity is inherently destabilizing. It threatens the things that communities hold dear. But on the other hand, we know that when people interact with people from different backgrounds, this reduces prejudice. So how do we reconcile these seemingly contradictory things? Is the problem too much contact with different groups or not enough?

[00:03:57.05] 

Oh, that's such a great question. To start, I'd say I think it's really important to mention that people often think that immigration or diversity are the causes of friction, but this isn't always the case. A lot of how we respond to diversity or newcomers into any community or society has to do a lot with the conditions under which those groups are brought into contact with each other. And there's hundreds of research studies to show that the more we interact with people from groups other than our own, the less threatened or prejudiced we're likely to feel in relation to those other groups. But there's at least two other things that I think are really important to note here. One is that these shifts that we could see toward less threat or lower prejudice actually require actual interaction between people from different groups. So it's not enough to simply have proximity or have people from different groups in the same space. We actually have to make sure they interact and engage with one another. So that's one thing I would mention. Another thing I think is important to mention is that we have to be thoughtful and intentional about how we create those spaces when we're asking groups to come into contact with each other.

[00:05:05.13] 

And a lot of this comes from asking ourselves what types of relations do we want to foster between them and how can we structure situations accordingly?

[00:05:14.04] 

It's so important that you're bringing in the word relationship. Merely living in a diverse neighborhood doesn't automatically check the box for the kinds of interactions we're talking about here. And this is an important point that you make all the time in your work that not all contact is created equal. It matters not just whether people interact, but how they interact, the quality of those interactions. And so I'd love if you could walk us through the sort of so called optimal conditions of contact. What, what needs to be present for these interactions to go from mere proximity to actually having the kinds of positive effects you're talking about?

[00:05:59.18] 

Great question. So there's a number of conditions that have been identified in the research literature that, as you note, have been referred to as Optimal Conditions for Contact. And these are understood as helping to facilitate positive outcomes when members of different groups come into interactions with each other. And these would include things like establishing equal status between the groups within that contact situation. So even if they have different statuses or power relations in the larger society, that when they're brought together, they are treated and regarded as equals. We also recommend institutional support, that there are local authorities, community leaders, policy norms and customs that basically say, yes, you should interact with each other and you should interact as equals. And then there are also conditions that are often thought about interrelated to each other, being cooperation and common goals. Sometimes those are referred to together as interdependence. And they're basically getting at this idea that we need to have members of different groups actively working together where they're really relying on each other in order to achieve shared goals. And as I kind of list out these different conditions that are often considered optimal for maximizing positive outcomes from contact.

[00:07:15.22] 

I also want us to remember that the research would suggest that rather than thinking about these as just a checklist, it's best to think of them as working together to facilitate those positive outcomes. So the more you can structure the contact in line with these conditions, the better or the greater the likelihood of achieving reductions in prejudice and threat from contact.

[00:07:37.01] 

This is, it's in a way extremely intuitive.

[00:07:41.07] 

So another thing I think would be useful to add is that there's newer research to suggest that the value of close cross group relationships or meaningful contact across group lines, where people from different groups have repeated opportunities to engage with one another, like what you see in friendships, can also really be beneficial for reducing prejudice and reducing threat. And so you can think about this meaningful close cross group engagement as compared to relatively superficial or more transactional relations between groups where they just, you know, walk past each other, or where people from different groups are only interact with each other once. Basically the underlying principle here is that the greater and the deeper the engagement between people from different groups, the more likely we are to see reductions in threat and prejudice. And in large part this is because we become transformed at a real personal and emotional level. That is, we not only start to feel less threatened by others presence, becoming more familiar with them by engaging with them, we might also come to care about and learn more about and empathize with their experiences.

[00:08:49.03] 

This is so important and I think worth pausing here for a minute because when we think about designing policy, sometimes it's tempting to just go, great, more contact, more interactions. You know, we're done for the day. But you're right. When we all think about the meaningful relationships we have in our own lives, you know, look in your telephone. What numbers do you have in your telephone? Is it the immigrant shop owner that you buy groceries from once a week? So kind of what you're describing as these casual, infrequent, transactional relationships, they can be pleasant, but they don't necessarily lead to friendship potential. That's so different from building a relationship with a foreign born parent at your kid's school or at church places where you're kind of co-designing what you want your community to look like. Right. What values you want it to uphold. And this also goes back to how you mentioned status. And if you think about it, there aren't really that many opportunities outside of school, workplace, place of worship for adults to interact on without that hierarchy necessarily and work towards shared goals. And that's not going to happen even if you have a very pleasant casual interaction in a park or a library?

[00:10:14.04] 

Absolutely, absolutely. And I think that's one of the reasons why people often talk about integration. The goal is not to try to force people to interact with each other, but by having more integrated communities, people grow accustomed to mixing with each other and it becomes much more natural and comfortable and habitual to start cultivating those relationships that might not otherwise take place.

[00:10:35.24] 

It's important for them to be organic, which is of course, which is a, which is a tall order for policymakers trying to, trying to design these things. Let's also talk about the challenges of contact. So the flip side of this, you talked about the optimal conditions, but are there wrong conditions where contact or increased diversity in general can also increase threat?

[00:11:01.22] 

Oh, absolutely. So for example, if large numbers of people from a different group come into our community, you know, and especially if they come very quickly, like there's a large influx of migrants from another country or perhaps internal migration that shifts our local demographics, we're likely to feel threatened by that. Right. That's a natural human response. And you sometimes hear rhetoric related to like invaders or people coming in and taking away our homes. Right. What I think the research on contact seeks to emphasize and remind us is that that is not our only option and that we can actually be more mindful and intentional about how we ease people within our community to help them respond to those transitions and those new arrivals. So on the one hand, we can create spaces where longtime community members and new arrivals can actually get to know each other. Right. Where those others can become more human in our eyes. Because, you know, as human beings, we don't like uncertainty. We often fear what we don't know. Right. So the more accustomed we are to people who are different from us, the more we grow to feel comfortable with difference.

[00:12:09.09] 

Right. It doesn't feel so scary or something that we need to feel fearful about or threatened by. And then at a broader level, we can also work to create more welcoming and inclusive policies, support supporting that type of integration. Because like what I talked about before with respect to institutional support, the more we see people around us, not only our neighbors and friends, but also local norms and local leaders supporting that type of integration, the more likely we are to be willing to engage across those lines of difference. Whatever the differences happen to be, whether it's due to nationality or race or ethnicity or language, it just becomes more part of what we're used to, which tends to be less threat provoking.

[00:12:53.03] 

I really like how you brought in the human element, but also the institutional element. And I think on the human side, I absolutely agree. We can't dismiss the discomfort, the friction that basically almost always comes with different groups living side by side and feeling threatened by changes we feel we can't control is not, is not a moral failure. It's so human. It's maybe the most human thing there is. But I like your point, how we also, we can acknowledge that and accept it and crucially not try to dismiss it when people are feeling that way, but also not accept that that then has to be the way we live side by side in some society. Right. There are ways to negotiate differences to ease those frictions, but we have to be willing to put in the work. We have to be willing to invest in building those institutions, shaping the norms, creating the conditions.

[00:13:53.19] 

Yes. And, you know, if I could just add, you know, one of the things that we learn as we grow up is that we're capable of doing things that are not entirely comfortable. Right. We can learn to, to go to the gym and push ourselves, and we sometimes choose to do that even though it's hard in the moment. But we become stronger in a lot of ways and it makes us more capable of doing other sorts of things. Similarly, you know, when we start to learn a new language, we're very awkward, or most of us are. Can't speak for you, Natalia, but a lot of us get awkward when we start to speak a new language and it feels uncomfortable and we don't know if we're holding our mouth right and speaking. But we become more fluid with practice. And I think very similar sets of skills are involved here when we're talking about contact, we tend to avoid it because it's uncomfortable or it seems scary, but once we start, once we make it to the gym, in other words, we get better at it with more practice. And so I hope we can adopt more of this learning approach to thinking about difference as compared to defaulting toward fear and threat and avoidance, which is what we often do out of comfort.

[00:15:01.07] 

You're so right. I mean, it is awkward putting yourself in an unfamiliar situation, and you need some encouragement to be able to do that. First, you have to believe that there's a benefit on the other side. If you're gonna walk all the way across the playground into a group of other parents speaking a different language and just go, hey, you really have to believe that it's. It's worth it to do that. And there have to be kind of larger incentives in place. Right. And so I think this question of incentives is also an important one because a lot of the programming that is set up to bring different groups together is sort of built around leisure. It's voluntary. It really caters to people who. Who have already decided that that's important and they want to invest in it. But for people who are unsure, who need a little. Need some help to kind of get out of that discomfort, and people who have some prejudices. Right. Who have some questions about this other group, you need another set of interventions, I think. And ideally, you have to give people another reason to be there and to participate.

[00:16:16.07] 

I think this leads into another question for you, which is, we kind of know, we know a lot about the conditions under which contact is most effective and theoretically, how to design it on paper. And so if we know all these things about what can work and what doesn't often work, you know, why aren't we doing it? What is getting in the way?

[00:16:42.13] 

Well, I think, on the one hand, you know, some of the things that do get in the way are those personal fears that we experience. You know, I'm really struck by the example that you gave about, you know, a brave person walking across a playground to say hello to parents from a different background. Because that's where I see those optimal conditions really playing a role. Right. So that rather than a person having to be strong enough to walk that distance and engage with a group of people who are entirely different, there can be features of that situation that are structured to encourage mixing. So it doesn't feel like such a tall order or such a big ask. People just need to show up to the space, and then there will be opportunities for mixing. Right. So that's what I think we often think about in the contact research literature. How can we structure those situations to maximize that type of social mixing? But granted, you know, there are several structural issues or broader drivers of conflict that can get in the way. So, for example, segregation, you know, when groups are racially, ethnically and economically segregated from each other, it makes it harder for them to have those opportunities for meaningful interactions or to really get to know each other.

[00:17:49.02] 

So, you know, without those habitual, regular interactions, we only end up with relatively distant or more stereotypical views of what quote, unquote, those people are like. That makes it harder for us to recognize our shared humanity.

[00:18:02.13] 

Can I just jump in for a second on this point? Because it's so interesting just to go back to the playground, I guess, to kind of put this to make it more concrete. Just being together on the playground is not building the bridge that we're talking about. And I think that's what is really important to understand from a policy perspective. And in fact, a situation where you have physical proximity but mistrust or emotional distance can actually make people feel farther apart. They're close enough to see the differences, but they haven't been given the tools to bridge those differences. So, you know, there's a really big difference between being on the playground and having different groups self segregate and clusters versus what you're talking about structuring social mixing in a very deliberate way. So, for example, having a parent group group that meets in the auditorium and they're given a task to do together and they have to work together and cooperate, like those are really, really different things.

[00:19:06.09] 

Absolutely. And I would even go further and say those parents in the auditorium, that when they walk into the auditorium they be given different colored stickers or randomly assigned numbers and that they have to go to the table that they're assigned to. So they can't just stick with people that they know already and feel close to already already, but they're given that extra encouragement through the structure of the situation to engage in those types of conversations with people they don't know as well.

[00:19:31.07] 

And it feels awkward if somebody is forcing you to do it well, but

[00:19:35.19] 

it feels more awkward if you're expected to do that without the structure. And so that's what the role that we can play, right? We can intentionally structure the situations to facilitate that type of mixing so that people themselves don't have to feel like, well, I'm going to be the awkward one and introduce myself to people I don't know. Right. It's a lot easier when someone else facilitates that introduction for you.

[00:19:59.11] 

Exactly. You're like, I'm sitting here because I was given the green sticker, not because I am being really socially awkward.

[00:20:07.08] 

Exactly, exactly. And then you give those groups of people at the different tables instructions about the things that you're asking them to talk about and think about and disclose about themselves and their experiences living in their community so that they don't feel like they're the weird ones talking about themselves. But this is what they were asked to do explicitly. So you can see how structuring the situation, structuring the content and nature and flow of the discussion actually can help people get to know each other in meaningful ways without people having to get over the hump of their own fears, because this is what they're being expected to do.

[00:20:45.08] 

So that's okay. So one issue is when people are sort of naturally segregated and you've talked about how to encourage mixing. What about another driver of conflict that we're seeing a lot right now, which is just, life is hard, Economic conditions are challenging. People are in communities feeling like, I need to look out for myself. What do we do with that?

[00:21:11.17] 

Local economic conditions are hugely important to consider. Because if local economics are challenging, right, like there's high levels of unemployment or food insecurity, then it's understandable that we might feel threatened and protected by the presence of new folks. Right. Because we want to be able to look out for our own interests. But I think this is part of the issue that often comes up in public discourse and in policy discourse, and that it's not the presence of those other people or that diversity locally that's inherently the problem. The problem is that those groups are being brought together or coming into contact or, you know, in proximity with each other under poor economic conditions that can provoke them to feel threatened or to, you know, naturally being kind toward competition. That is the actual problem, I would say.

[00:22:02.24] 

And it really also depends on how you tell the story of what the problem is. Right. So this is where narratives come in something. We work a lot on it at MPI because, you know, people have one perspective of what's happening based on what they see with their own eyes, but they're also listening. They're also responsive to what they're being told. Is the cause of the problem by neighbors, politicians, media, etc.

[00:22:30.17] 

Yes. And, you know, again, as human beings, when we face uncertainty, we look for answers. And, you know, sometimes, as you well know, media representations and political rhetoric are used to point towards certain answers, such that the more we hear from local or political leaders that we should feel threatened, then that can direct our attention toward feeling more threatened and adopting or reinforcing a more competitive mindset than we would otherwise be inclined to take on our own. So, you know, on the one hand, I think it's fair to say that in and of itself, contact between groups like what we've been talking about today will not necessarily wipe out all of our other social problems or concerns, but it might help to mitigate some of the problems that we face, particularly in relation to growing diversity and social division. And I guess, you know, sometimes I'm asked by policymakers like, well, do you see this as the solution to the problem? And I honestly would say I don't know that I see it as the ultimate and only solution to the problem. But the way I see it is, what's the alternative? Do we just continue to segregate and isolate from each other more and more?

[00:23:39.14] 

Honestly, I don't see that as sustainable in the long term. There's only so many gated communities that we can develop. I don't think we can function in the long term that way. So, you know, on the other hand, I think it's important for us to resist point to get contact or diversity as the problem because there's this combination of social forces that are keeping groups separate from one another. So, you know, just most recently we started talking about media representations and political rhetoric. But if you compound that by also thinking about challenging economic conditions and entrenched patterns of segregation, then, you know, that's a pretty substantial set of challenges for contact to be able to dismantle or help us work through.

[00:24:21.11] 

Through, indeed. And when the threat is painted as acute and the blame is being squarely placed on a sort of easy scapegoat, it's really challenging, right? We can, can sit here and discuss that, you know, there are larger structural challenges at play that are causing people to feel insecurity. But that's not what plays in political debates. That's not the sound bite in the media. It's so much easier to say, look, this, this newcomer who just arrived, this is why you're feeling this range of problems. And it's much easier to come up with that kind of simple solution than actually do the very, very difficult policy work of investing properly in community conditions and infrastructure that you need from, for people to thrive. But we are in this situation, right? Immigrants are being painted as a threat. We see rise in conspiracy theories, negative narratives. And so when we are in acute crisis mode, you know, can you say a little bit more about what you think we can realistically do in these situations in terms of improving relationships between groups?

[00:25:37.17] 

Yeah, you know, and I think about this a lot in terms of kind of reverse engineering a lot of those obstacles that we just talked about. So, on the one hand, we can try to improve local economic conditions for everyone so that arrival of immigrants or newcomers will not automatically be perceived as the primary cause of economic downturns or the hardships that we're facing. Through thinking about media narratives or media coverage, we can also highlight all of the contributions that new arrivals and immigrants make to the local community. And this appears to be very much the approach that Welcoming America and many of its partners have used during welcoming weeks. I believe it's coming up in September. There's an annual welcoming week where they seek to highlight the value of inclusive communities that encourage people across differences to contribute to their collective prosperity. Look at what we're all contributing to, making our community as great as it is. And I think in many ways, it's really a rising tide lifts all boats type of approach. And then, you know, alongside these strategies, as we've already talked about, work to reduce segregation between group and really cultivate those meaningful opportunities for engagement across group lines in intentional ways where we structure not only the communities, but specific situations where people from different groups encounter one another to facilitate and make it easier for them to engage and share and experience what each other is experiencing.

[00:27:05.11] 

I really like this idea of doing more to kind of stitch people into the fabric of the collective and emphasize that everyone's sort of working toward a shared goal. I think sometimes some of these efforts to paint immigrants in a positive light have backfired a little bit where they overly focus on the positive. So if we just talk about sort of exceptional newcomers and the contributions that they can make, you know, this kind of goes. Goes back to what we were discussing earlier in terms of you can't ignore that people are feeling discomfort, that people are feeling kind of thrown upside down by some of the changes that they're seeing. And so in that situation, if you come and say, actually it's fine, and they. These newcomers are only bringing positive things that can actually backfire a little bit. I mean, immigration just isn't a story of unvarnished benefits, nor is it a story of only harms. There's a lot of gray area nuance in the middle. And we have to kind of engage with the messiness of that. I think it really does connect back to everything you've said about bringing people together as a collective, working towards some shared vision.

[00:28:28.04] 

And especially given the examples you were talking about working toward community goals, things that would benefit everyone in the community. You know, I've been doing some work with the Trust for Public Land to bring together White, Black and recently arrived Latino residents in local communities for park building projects where everyone wants to contribute to building a local park park and make their communities better and more vibrant. And we've been seeing some encouraging results in terms of having these mixed ethnic, mixed racial groups work together in building public park spaces, in terms of promoting greater feelings of belonging for everyone in local parks and also encouraging greater willingness to engage with people from other backgrounds. Whereas without those opportunities for engagement and working together together to build the park spaces, they might have otherwise just passed each other on the sidewalk in the park and not said hello.

[00:29:20.14] 

Right.

[00:29:20.21] 

So there are things that we can do in these public spaces, or what some might refer to as third spaces, to try to bring groups together in more intentional ways.

[00:29:29.03] 

And it's so important what you're saying about the co design aspect because I think one of the triggers of a lot of the anxiety we've seen around immigration in communities is that people see these changes and they feel like they weren't consulted. You know, I've lived here my whole life and now all of a sudden the 4th of July parade looks completely different. Who gets to decide? Right? Like who, who gets to decide how we're going to live this shared life in this community? And I think if people feel like that decision has been taken from them or others are being given preference, that can really solidify these feelings of competition that we're desperately trying to avoid. You know, same when you see one project that, that's been funded for one community and people feel like, wait a minute, you know, I've been waiting for, for my rec center and now you use this money to help the, the most newly arrived. But what about the folks who have been here for a long time? So, you know, I think these efforts to make everybody feel like they have a voice and a say, an agency are really important.

[00:30:37.20] 

Absolutely. And to just underline something that you had just said, I think one of the issues there is to not think about these goals of integration or structured contact as separate, you know, like social cohesion programming, which I often have heard in the civil society space to say, like, actually no, you can work on community development goals, but infuse the implementation of your programs to achieve those goals with principles from the research literature on intergroup contact.

[00:31:08.03] 

I think that is an excellent note to end this on. It's a very inspiring message and I think gives us a lot of food for thought for how we need to both design and frame policies in the future. We started off today talking about conflict between different groups and how to reduce friction. And I think we sort of ended in this place where we agree that in our efforts to alleviate friction, we shouldn't make the mistake of trying to achieve frictionless societies. Right? We need to accept that there will be some discomfort with different groups living side by side. We shouldn't ignore it. We shouldn't attempt to erase it. We need to deal with it. We need people to be bumping up against each other in sometimes uncomfortable ways in different settings and go through that messy process of negotiating what it means to belong, what it means to create a shared vision for our collective future. And I think that that discomfort, that sort of healthy friction, is part of building meaningful human relationships. As always, I could talk to you for many, many more hours than we have time for right now. But I'm.

[00:32:27.01] 

I'm so grateful that we got this little bit of time to talk today. Thank you so much for.

[00:32:33.00] 

Oh, it's been my pleasure. Thank you.

[00:32:34.18] 

Smart thoughts. Dr. Linda Tropp is a professor of Social Psychology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Thanks for tuning in to this episode of World of Migration. You can find all the episodes for World of Migration and other information podcasts at migrationpolicy.org/podcasts or find us wherever you get your podcasts. Just search for World of Migration and please leave us a review while you're there. This episode was produced by Elizabeth Navarro with input from Michelle Mittelstadt and Julian Hattem. Our music is a song called Geographer by Bright Idea. My name is Natalia Banulescu-Bogdan. Thanks again for listening.