HOSTILE CONTEXTS AND THE CONSEQUENCES FOR MUSLIM POLITICAL INTEGRATION

Abstract

Muslim immigrant-minority (MIM) communities are projected to become critical proportions of European electorates in the next few decades. Yet at the same time, MIMs are frequently the targets of aggressive and antagonistic political campaigns and rhetoric. These two trends beg the question, how might hostile contexts shape MIMs’ political incorporation outcomes? So far, research on hostility’s effects among European immigrant-minority populations is still in its infancy, with even less evidence to identify whether hostility produces clear responses among targeted group members. In my own project, I create and implement an original survey experiment (N=1000) in the United Kingdom to test for and ultimately establish the existence of a causal relationship. Instead of assuming uniform responses, the project further adopts an approach that accounts for important moderating variables (Muslim identification, partisan attachment). The project focuses on three outcomes of interest: vote likelihood, vote choice, and organizational involvement. In the first section, I find that exposure to hostile cues increases likelihood of voting overall and particularly among the specific subgroups of interest (strong Muslim identifiers and politically marginalized MIMs). In the second section, I examine whether intent to vote for the Labour Party (the largest and most viable option) increases in response to evidence of group-targeted threat. I find that hostility (relative to the control) increases preference for Labour both in the aggregate and among the specific subgroups of interest. In the final section, I look beyond behaviors that involve direct interaction with political institutions to consider more communal, organizational involvement. Here I also distinguish between in-group-oriented and mainstream organizations to identify whether differences in organizational orientation shape involvement interest. I find that while hostility does not increase aggregate involvement interest, more politically integrated MIMs (partisans) are mobilized by hostility, while the opposite is true for more politically marginalized MIMs. Together these findings suggest that though MIMs are stigmatized and marginalized, hostile messages can serve to mobilize participation and engagement to produce more pro-group outcomes. In general, I do not find evidence that group-targeted and politically sourced hostility diminishes MIM interest in integrating and participating in their community. These results have important implications for political integration trajectories of MIM communities and marginalized communities more generally as they work to find their voices in contemporary politics.