Summary of the Sinus-Milieu based Study on Discrimination in Everyday Life

(1)

Summary of the Sinus-Milieu based Study on Discrimination in Everyday Life

Key results of a qualitative and quantitative baseline study on the per- ception of discrimination and anti-discrimination policy in Germany Tasks and methodology of the study

This social science research project, carried out by the Heidelberg-based Si- nus-Institut on behalf of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, aimed to ob- tain an empirically sound overview of the thematic field of discrimination and protection from discrimination as perceived by the public. The focus was on understanding how the different groups and milieus of society handle the subject, what fields of action and actors they see and what they expect from anti-discrimination policies.

The study population was the German-speaking residential population from age 18 years. The methodology combined qualitative and quantitative ap- proaches in an effort to map the subject in a holistic and sufficient manner.

The results are statistically representative in terms of both contents and quantity. Following a pilot study to identify the aspects and differentiations that are relevant from the population’s perspective, a broad-based qualitative psychological survey was carried out to ascertain perceptual patterns and attitudes among all population groups and analyse them in depth (20 several- hours creative workshops), a complementary exploratory study with individuals affected by discrimination (40 biographical in-depth interviews) and a representative survey (2,610 individuals) to obtain robust representative data on the opinion distribution among the population and in the various milieus. Data collection took place between July 2007 and April 2008. The final study report was submitted in July 2008.

To facilitate practical application of the findings to the various target groups, the research project “Discrimination in Everyday Life” generally relied on a socially differentiating perspective. This is because there is no one public attitude towards discrimination; instead, a broad spectrum of perspectives and ways of experience, norms, conventions and motives are linked to the subject and lead to highly different tendencies to act, depending on the individual’s basic orientation and lifestyle.

Both in the qualitative research steps and in quantification, therefore, the target group-approach of Sinus-Milieus® -was employed - a proven, practical planning instrument that has been used by industry and service companies as well as policy-makers and other public clients since the early 1980s.

(2)

Ranking of discrimination as a topic

The majority of German citizens do not feel that the topic of discrimination and equal treatment and/or the promotion of disadvantaged groups in our society has particular urgency. Levels of public attention to and outrage over the topic are rather low. In the context of discrimination and disadvantages, issues relating to the welfare State, such as the sustainability of the social security systems and social justice in Germany are mentioned first and - unlike the protection of the groups mentioned in the General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz - AGG) cited as the foremost political tasks by large parts of the population.

Specifically, while the characteristics which the AGG mentions as grounds of discrimination can be spontaneously recalled - in addition to many others - many respondents only see it as a genuine concern of theirs to protect the corresponding groups if these are persons with disabilities and (in some in- stances) women and elderly persons. As most respondents are not personally affected by discrimination on grounds of race, colour, ethnicity, religion or philosophy, or sexual identity, they tend to offer only boilerplate statements if it comes to the protection from discrimination, if at all. The common attitude is that “charity begins at home”, often followed by the argument that globali- sation has led to stiffer competition in our society. At the same time, both those affected by discrimination and the large majority of the non-affected denounce the increasing egoism in German society and the absence of human kindness, the lack of common spirit, the rampant loss of respect and consid- eration, and generally an aggressive atmosphere and excessive competitive- ness.

Only 15% of the population can be said to make up the hard core of equality champions. These are the respondents who strongly disagree with the statement “I think that there is no need for anti-discrimination policy” (40%

overall agreed with the statement). The potential for social progress on this matter probably lies in the large group of those who reluctantly agree (49%), presenting themselves at least as “somewhat interested” in this topic. In this group - that has hardly any distinctive profile in terms of gender, age and education -, just as in that of “highly interested” respondents, society’s lead milieus (“established”, “postmaterialist” milieus and “modern performers”) as well as the young milieu of “experimentalists” are clearly overrepresented.

Consequently, the group most likely to fight against discrimination and disadvantages - at least verbally - seems to the social elites. In the traditional milieus (“traditionals”, “GDR nostalgists”) as well as in the modern lower class milieus ("consumer materialists", "hedonists"), the opposition to seeing disadvantaged persons afforded protection from discrimination tends to be very fierce (unless they count themselves among this group).

In this segment, the issue of discrimination is primarily seen against the backdrop of one’s own affectedness or neediness. They see themselves as socially disadvantaged - women even more so than men - and demand that society protect them from discrimination and, above all, improve their material resources. In this context, they perceive themselves in competition with the classical “marginalised groups”, especially the migrants who, at present, are widely held to be favoured by the State.

(3)

The middle class has highly ambivalent attitudes towards the subject of discrimination. No other milieu offers such a wide discrepancy between lip service to the protection from discrimination and tolerance towards disadvantaged groups on the one hand and chauvinist attitudes (especially among men) and fierce exclusion impulses on the other. Frequently employed mechanisms to cope with this conflict are antagonism and denial. The State and policy-makers that make "life hard" for the citizens by imposing endlessly new regulations and constraints on them (e.g. the AGG) are scapegoated to cope with their frustration. In its perception of social reality, the “bourgeois middle class“ milieu is massively biased by status problems and fears of social decline. The more uncertain the times, the harder the milieu tries, on the one hand, to assert its position through the will to perform and the willingness to adapt and, on the other, to distance itself from marginalised groups and to set themselves off from the losers and downwardly mobiles.

Which groups are seen as disadvantaged?

The answers to the question of which people are disadvantaged in our society are highly diverse and focus not so much on the groups explicitly mentioned in the AGG than on the myriad ways of material discrimination. First and foremost, it is the group of socially vulnerable persons that is considered to be disadvantaged.

Overall, respondents are able to recall a broad spectrum of socially or eco- nomically disadvantaged groups which reveals that the German population is keenly aware of unequal treatments, being essentially committed to the ideal of (material) equity and welfare, but also prone to denying other forms of discrimination.

Of the groups mentioned in the AGG, persons disadvantaged on grounds of their ethnic origin, disability or age are the most likely to be cited. The other groups are relatively less likely to be spontaneously recalled. Incidentally, the results of the qualitative surveys show that awareness of disadvantaged groups is strongly correlated with their media presence and, as such, also subject to the volatile cycle of newsworthiness. Moreover, they reveal that the spontaneous mention of a group may not be equated with the level of vulnerability ascribed to it. Only discrimination against persons with disabilities and elderly persons is considered a problem of social urgency. In the representative survey, these two were the only groups for which more respondents agreed that “more should be done” for them than respondents agreeing with “less” or “nothing should be done” for them.

Attitudes towards the groups protected under the AGG

Overall, the equal treatment of disadvantaged group in society is not considered a high-priority topic. However, the willingness to address it is not dis- tributed equally, but varies from one group to another. The younger, more educated and socioculturally modern an individual and the more solid their social status, the more open they are towards the problem of discrimination.

In addition, the priority and focus of the topic of discrimination also vary from one social milieu to another.

(4)

The fewest prejudices and negative opinions in connection with the groups protected under the AGG are found in the young milieus of “modern performers” and “experimentalists” who reject the common deprecation of all matters not “normal” and stand up against the “pigeonholing” that is rife in our society. The “post materialist“ lead milieu shows an ostentatiously accepting attitude especially towards foreign people, religions and cultures. Those least open towards the foregoing groups - other than elderly and disabled persons - were found to be in the traditional segment, among the “conservatives” and

"traditionals". Not a few of those interviewees find that our country’s “own citizens” are (financially) discriminated against, i.e. all of those who are not homosexual, who have no migration background and do not live off social transfers.

Discrimination on grounds of ethnicity or colour

Both in the qualitative surveys and in the representative survey, strong, emo- tionally charged reservations towards foreign nationals and migrants became apparent across almost all milieus. These manifest as discomfort, distrust and irrational fears as well as the well-known resentment-laden negative clichés.

Frequently, the underlying reason is a feeling of comprehensive and uncon- trollable threat caused by the excessive influx of foreigners. The threatening scenario of the full boat, abetted by references to misguided developments (inner-city migrant ghettoes, violent crime among foreign youth, burdens on the social security systems etc,) quickly lead to aggressive ostracising

tendencies.

Especially in the traditional and lower class milieus, sheer hatred towards persons of other ethnicity or colour can be felt. In these milieus, the common opinion is that it is not the migrants who are in need of State protection from discrimination, but that the “locals”, “our own people” had to be protected from the consequences of an immigration wave that is felt to be threatening and likely to “erode” the foundations of our welfare state. In the upper milieus and the middle class, segregation mechanisms are more subtle. In this segment, too, however, the majority feel that there are too many migrants in the country, that things are “out of balance“, that problems are downplayed although they are hardly controllable anymore. It follows that commitments affirming the vulnerability of these people tend to be only lip service paid to comply with social norms.

However, the “postmaterialists’“ plea for greater pluralism and openness is credible against the backdrop of the liberal cosmopolitical philosophy typical of this milieu. The segments most likely to acknowledge the need to protect persons of different colour or origin from discrimination are the young milieus of “experimentalists”, “modern performers” and, in some part, also “hedonists”.

Discrimination on grounds of gender

A view offered across all different social milieus, and by both women and men, is that women are still disadvantaged in our society, mainly in the world of work as a result of lower pay and poorer career opportunities. Here, and unlike for other disadvantaged groups, even targeted equality policies are thought to be justified.

(5)

In the segment of society’s lead milieus, especially in the “established“ milieu, the emancipation debate is still ongoing. However, people in this milieu see themselves as privately responsible for progress in this field and do not want to be patronised by policy-makers. The institutionalised women’s quota is often cited as a prime example of “misguided bureaucracy” in this field. By contrast, the middle class is relatively content with the current opportunities and possibilities available to women. Correspondingly, feelings of being discriminated against are moderate among the women of this milieu. In the traditional segment, among the “conservatives“ and “traditionals“, the topic has the lowest level of urgency, even though the problem of old age poverty that is likely to affect predominantly women, is occasionally cited as criticism. In these milieus, many women have internalised the classical female role and the associated gender hierarchy. Most of them are convinced that the situation of women has markedly improved over recent years or decades.

For the surveyed members of the young milieus (“hedonists“, “experimentalists“, “modern performers“), the need to have a gender-specific protection from discrimination in place is a matter of course. They mainly lament the overly leisurely pace of role changes and the fact that old clichés still dominate society. Interviewees in this segment, too, assume that the situation of women has “historically improved” and that “quite progressive conditions” obtain precisely in Germany. Nevertheless, they continue to see women (mainly mothers) as being disadvantaged - a grievance they still feel needs to be fought vehemently.

Discrimination on grounds of religion or philosophy

Discussions over discrimination on grounds of religion or philosophy tend to quickly boil down to religion (other forms of belief are negligible) and specifically, to Islam and its ubiquitously negative image. In other words, whenever the word “religion” comes up, what springs to mind is “Islam”. It is spontaneously associated with religious “fundamentalism“. And the latter is first of all ex- pected to bring violence and “terror” - as suggested by relevant media reports.

Irrespective of the perceived threat posed by Islam, people across all milieus reject any public display of religious commitment and associate it with “fundamentalism” and “fanaticism”. For religion to dominate everyday life is considered historically obsolete and “overcome“ in our culture. Since every religion or philosophy claims to be one and only, it necessarily tends to discriminate

against those who believe in something else. In so far, a clear majority of interviewees do not see any need to afford the active proponents of a religion, of all people, protection from discrimination. The respondents who are more likely than others to subscribe to that viewpoint come from the mainstream milieus of “bourgeois middle class” and “consumer materialists”.

Discussions over religion in a manner befitting an enlightened society, i.e. ac- knowledging that people are discriminated against in Germany on grounds of their religion and realising that followers of certain religions (Muslims, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses etc.) meet with covert and even open hostility, currently seem to be blocked due to the (strongly increased) islamophobic tendencies and the mix-up between religion and migration reported by many respondents.

(6)

Discrimination on grounds of disability

People across all milieus agree that persons with a physical or psychological disability must be protected from unjustified discrimination. Problems encoun- tered by the disabled particularly offend the respondents’ feeling of justice because, as commonly reported, “the poor devils” are not to blame for their deficits.

Unlike the attitude to other disadvantaged minorities, acceptability of the active protection of disabled persons up to their targeted favoured treatment in the world of work (corporate quotas for disabled persons) and in public spac- es (e.g. disabled parking) is based on the psychology of guilt. On the one hand, they evoke feelings of pity (disabled persons are thought to be “help- less“, “weak“, “vulnerable“), contrasting with a strong reluctance to engage with them on the other. Most respondents admit to feeling ill at ease around disabled persons and to keeping their distance and looking away as a result.

To ease their conscience, people across all milieus tend to reassure themselves that much is being done for disabled persons in our society (elevators and ramps for wheelchairs, sheltered workshops, audible signals at pedestrian crossings, special leisure time and day-care services, integrated education at school etc.) and that the situation of these people has “clearly improved” in recent years. Respondents also frequently stress that, while disabled persons are disadvantaged in our society, they are not discriminated against. Espe- cially statutory provisions (corporate quota for disabled staff) were reported to have made a big difference so that this topic was being handled much more openly and the visibility of disabled persons in everyday life had increased.

Discrimination on grounds of age

Elderly persons in Germany are disadvantaged and discriminated against.

This is a statement all age groups and milieus agree with. The situation of elderly persons is reported to be inacceptably poor, their living conditions frequently inhumane and undignified - that is the opinion of those who are older themselves and feel “shunted off“ and also the opinion of the younger persons who are virtually afraid of getting old eventually. Across all milieus, respondents critically note that elderly persons in our society are “marginalised figures“, do not really belong anymore, are shunted off (to homes for the elderly and nursing homes), are no longer respected and only seen as a bur- den. In the lead milieus (“established“, “postmaterialists“, “modern performers“) and in the “bourgeois middle class“, this is blamed on the concept of the human person that prevails in our performance society, one that focuses on cost-benefit considerations and effectivity. Particularly in the world of work, the prejudice had taken hold that elderly workers were no longer able to learn and be effective.

This tallies with the feelings of uselessness, helplessness and isolation that are frequently reported by interviewees from elderly milieus (“conservatives“,

“traditionals“, “GDR nostalgists“) combined with the grief of seeing a life- time’s work go unacknowledged and often even the traumatic experience of being elbowed out of one’s job. Naturally, the urgency with which respondents insist on seeing elderly people protected from discrimination correlates

(7)

with their own age. However, there are also milieu-specific (i.e. not age- related) differences in attitude. Here, we find a clear distance to elderly persons in the milieu of the “established“ and in the modern lower class (“hedonists“, “consumer materialists“). And it turns out that there is no generalised gerontophobia in the young milieus - in spite of all reservations - , but that a differentiated view is taken of intergenerational problems.

Discrimination on grounds of sexual identity

Many milieus are home to deep-rooted barriers and correspondingly virulent prejudices - even up to feelings of hate and disgust - towards sexual orienta- tions that diverge from the mainstream. Female respondents are overall somewhat more open to this topic (since less challenged in their sexual identity). By the same token, younger respondents tend to be more tolerant than older ones. However, the main differences in attitudes towards homosexuals exist among the various milieus.

Homophobic attitudes are prevalent in the traditional segment of society, but also in the “bourgeois middle class“ milieu. These milieus would prefer to push this problem away. Correspondingly strong is the resistance towards a

“politicisation” of sexuality, an area that is considered to be the epitome of privacy. The statutory protection from discrimination on grounds of one’s sexual orientation is by no means popular, either in the traditional segment or in the "established” and “bourgeois middle class” milieus. They reject particularly any policies that grant homosexual partnerships a legal status equal to that enjoyed by heterosexual marriages.

By contrast, many members of the modern lower class, particularly in the

“hedonist” milieu, do not see unconventional sexual behaviours as a problem.

The only problem - which, however, was soon going to resolve itself naturally - was reported to be the older generation with its obsolete views. Most members of the young milieus (“experimentalists” and “modern performers”) have a relaxed attitude towards homosexuality. Gays and lesbians are a natural part of everyday life in these milieus. In the “postmaterialist“ milieu, we also find a problem-aware and basically positive attitude towards homosexuals.

However, the foregoing respondents feel that for all of the progress made, these people still had to suffer overt or covert discrimination in our society and that the official equality policy has been pursued “half-heartedly” so far.

Perception of anti-discrimination policy

Spontaneous reactions to the term "anti-discrimination policy" tend to be mostly negative. The term provokes rejection and leads to adverse responses towards the bureaucratic constraints and regulations associated with it. These responses are due to the general resentments against politics (and policy- makers). Essentially, even though the term is semantically infelicitous, only a minority flatly rejects the cause itself - securing greater equity, participation and equality for disadvantaged groups in society by shaping the political framework conditions. However, many respondents, mainly in the traditional segment and the upper milieus, do by no means intend to leave this issue solely to the politicians but see private, citizen-based, church-based or union- based initiatives as more promising than laws and regulations.

(8)

Across the social groups and milieus, discrimination is generally perceived as unfair and despicable since it is felt to contradict our cultural values system that is based on equal opportunities, social fairness and solidarity. The impe- tus of equity and equal treatment implied in this understanding of the term is the social psychology basis of any antidiscrimination policy. Thus, equality- related measures in politics and economy basically have a values-based, or at least a moral, acceptability potential among the German population - to the extent that they refer to individuals and groups that are, firstly, considered disadvantaged through no guilt of their own and, secondly, socially included, i.e. perceived as part of one’s own social group, culture and setting. It is ob- vious that persons affected by discrimination are not always easily able to satisfy these requirements which recalls the limits of anti-discrimination en- deavours. Who, which individuals and groups, are considered as social and cultural in-groups and, as such, considered worthy to benefit from antidiscrimination measures, is controversial among the various groups and milieus of the population. The widely prevailing view is that in recent years, attention to all forms of discrimination has been increasing - through a higher public profile and also as a result of a policy-driven awareness-raising process - not least in connection with the introduction of the General Equal Treatment Act. This process is intensified by the media - according to many interviewees often in an inappropriate way. The dominant view in the traditional segment, in the modern lower class and in the middle class is that endlessly new minorities are “discovered”, endlessly new “purported cases of discrimination un- covered” - which, in these target groups, leads to desensitisation as well as

“discrimination fatigue“ and antagonism.

Many interviewees (not only in the foregoing segments) believe that heavily and less heavily discriminated groups, people who really need help and groups that take advantage of society's readiness to help stand haphazardly side by side on the public stage. This relativisation effect has eroded their trust in politics and the “media-driven” public opinion associated with it as mechanisms that might solve the problems of disadvantages and discrimination.

Milieu-specific attitudes to anti-discrimination policy

In spite of the general scepticism towards politics that pervades almost all population groups, the attitude towards discrimination - just as the perception of it - varies widely from one milieu to another.

For the young milieus of “experimentalists” and “modern performers”, anti- discrimination policy is part of the normal makeup of a democratic society in which the most diverse interests need to be reconciled. Moreover, many believe that examples of glaring inequity cannot be prevented without political pressure “from above”. However, they balk at overregulation and basically rather prefer positive incentives (i.e. tax credits for volunteering) than legal restrictions and interdictions. They plead for more awareness-raising efforts (mainly in education facilities such as schools and kindergartens) aimed to increase the public’s knowledge and understanding of foreign groups and ul- timately increase their tolerance.

(9)

Interviewees in the social lead milieus of the “established“ and “post materialists” are not confident that policies will be able to force a public rethink in the near term. They believe that such policies run up against society’s growing trend towards individualisation, the increase in egoism, indifference and isolation and not least the poor image of policy-making. Nevertheless, the take-home message from the lead milieus is that policy-makers have no al- ternative other than to put framework conditions in place and set standards - that might even be effective over the longer term since they create new facts on the ground.

In the traditional segment, especially in the "conservative” and “traditional”

milieus (who generally tend to view all matters political with suspicion), anti- discrimination policy meets with intense rejection and is referred to as "ut- terly unnecessary". The current anti-discrimination policy is spontaneously associated with “egalitarianism” and “thought police”.

The General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz) is referred to as “Gleichschaltungsgesetz” (which roughly translates as “Con- formity Enforcement Act”, recalling the Nazi-era Act of that name). They are opposed to legal instruments and regulations on this subject if only because the fundamental norms governing equality are already incorporated in the Basic Law. In the “bourgeois middle class“, similar to the “conservatives”

and “traditionals”, the Basic Law is likely to be invoked to depict anti-

discrimination policy - that triggers violent responses in this milieu as well - as unnecessary and pointless. The prevailing opinion in this milieu is that the problem of discrimination is "completely overrated" in our society anyway and “overblown” by the media for commercial reasons. The members of this milieu see the misuse of the liberal laws in our country and the unjustified uptake of social benefits as the bigger problem.

The attitude towards anti-discrimination policy in the milieus of the modern lower class (“hedonists” and “consumer materialists”) was not so much hos- tile as ignorant and, incidentally, strongly infused with bitterness and resig- nation. Measures of anti-discrimination policy are not well known, which is why many survey-takers jump to the conclusion that they are only about money, power and privilege for the politicians. Members of these milieus know from their own experience that vulnerable persons (among whom they count themselves) are always disadvantaged and discriminated against. The interviewees feel that the subject is highly topical since poverty was increasing in our society and the numbers of disadvantaged individuals was growing as a result. Many of those surveyed have a history of traumatic experiences with social services bureaucracy (employment agency, welfare office, youth office) and therefore fight against any form of “re-education” from above.

Anti-discrimination policy is also sometimes understood in this sense and therefore viewed with great scepticism - all the more so since proof of its usefulness, i.e. effective measures to improve the life of their own group, has yet to materialise.

(10)

General Equal Treatment Act and Federal Anti-discrimination Agency It is the rare interviewes who has a clear idea about the authorities and political institutions, actors, remits, activities and measures to be associated with anti-discrimination policy. While isolated elements are (more or less ac- cidentally) known, they are not combined to form an overall picture - which suggests that the status of anti-discrimination policy is considered to be rather poor and they are not clearly aware of its function in the political struc- ture of our country.

When asked about the General Equal Treatment Act in the representative survey, 34 per cent of respondents said they had heard of it. Another 15 per cent said they were not sure. As usual, there are milieu-specific differences, with awareness of the AGG being highest in the social lead milieus and lowest in the traditional segment. This finding therefore reflects environment- induced perceptual differences and not merely educational effects.

In other words, the majority of the population are not aware of the AGG.

This lack of awareness may be a reason for the more or less universal aversion to the Act that pervades all milieus. For the most part, the AGG is criti- cised as being too far removed from reality, too bureaucratic, contraproduc- tive or plainly humbug. The milieu where the AGG meets with the highest level of acceptance - to the extent that people are aware of it - is the modern lower class, since it can, on principle (i.e. if applied properly) help to de- fend oneself against unreasonable demands at work.

In the representative survey, 23 per cent said that they had heard of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency. Another 17 per cent are not sure.

The milieu-specific differences are largely similar to those seen when asking about awareness of the AGG - which leads to the suspicion that the AGG and ADS might be even mixed up occasionally.

The standard accusation levelled at the Anti-discrimination Agency is that its profile is too low and that it should be "more visible", advertise more. Oth- erwise, opinions are split over the usefulness and raison d'être of the ADS.

While the "established”, “conservative” and “traditional” milieus predominantly feel that such an entity is not able to make a difference anyway and will only cost the taxpayers money, the lower class milieus of all people, i.e.

the “hedonists”, “consumer materialists” and "GDR nostalgists” consider such an institution useful - as a port of contact for those affected, as an arbi- tration board or ombudsman’s office, or as a complaints board where to report grievances. In the milieus of “postmaterialists” and “modern performers”, the existence of an institution that specifically addresses discrimination issues and that is tasked with raising the public awareness to the problems of those affected is considered important.

(11)

The limits of anti-discrimination policy

Current anti-discrimination policies, and especially the General Equal Treat- ment Act, have an acceptability problem, because they do not address what the large majority identifies as the “real” problems and inequalities in society (specifically the growing poverty in Germany, the discrimination of socially vulnerable persons), but focus on unloved “marginalised groups” (such as foreign nationals, homosexuals, members of foreign religions). Statutory measures, such as the AGG, are often perceived as “exaggerated” because, according to the prevailing opinion, they tackle the wrong issues, i.e. the rather “petty problems” - even more so since the Basic Law already says that the individuals and groups referred to in the AGG may not be discriminated against.

The majority of the population feel nannied by anti-discrimination policy - where it is noticed at all - so that they are not only highly unwilling to comply with its provisions but also openly speak up against them out of an attitude of anger, disappointment, protest and cynicism. Negative responses to

“overregulation” and the virulent anti-politics resentments conspire to create an opinion of violent aversion to anti-discrimination policy - although the majority basically share the intentions and values underlying the anti-

discrimination approach (“justice to all”, “equal opportunities for all”, “more humaneness and helpfulness”).

This dilemma is compounded by the mostly bad image of the groups to be protected which leads to a situation where the efforts to achieve greater equality are likely to be mistaken for the intention to favour the wrong groups - mostly by the socially more vulnerable milieus of the traditional segment and the modern lower class. And this, so the clichéd perception goes, would necessarily lead to the country’s “own citizens” being discriminated against. In the lead milieus (“established", “post materialists”, “modern performers”) as well, anti-discrimination policy is not a priority in spite of the keen awareness of any injustices and disadvantages, and the willingness to finance costly equality and integration projects is highly limited.

A more detailed analysis of the different basic dispositions and patterns of attitude reveals that the perception focus progressively narrows down (to personal experience and the individual's immediate surroundings) the more acute a milieu feels affected by discrimination (for instance, the lower class milieus and the traditional milieus due to their social situation). Conversely:

the broader the focus and the sharper the political and social awareness, the lower the individual’s affectedness tends to be - at least subjectively - and the weaker the emotional involvement in the issue of discrimination (lead milieus, “experimentalists”).

The dilemma of a forward-looking anti-discrimination policy is not so much the acceptability of the norms and values on which it is built but the enforcement of real-life anti-discrimination measures on the ground. For this to happen, it would take a motivated support potential among the population that combines topic-involvement and commitment with a broad perceptual focus and a social problem attribution. The results of this study show that there is currently no such potential among the German population.

(12)

The complete study “Diskriminierung im Alltag - Wahrnehmung von Diskriminie- rung und Antidiskriminierungspolitik in unserer Gesellschaft“ is accessible here.

Contact details: Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency Glinkastrasse 24

D-10117 Berlin

Telephone: 030 18555-1855

E-Mail for counselling: beratung@ads.bund.de E-Mail for general questions: poststelle@ads.bund.de