Finnish Research Dispels Myth That Underprivileged Are Most Xenophobic

The research also suggested that political ideologies can no longer be compared on a one-dimensional scale, as socio-cultural values play an increasingly larger role, often outweighing economic considerations, disproving the traditional left-right dichotomy and increasing polarisation.

The assumption that the poor and the disadvantaged tend to be the strongest opponents to immigration is not correct, new Finnish research  maintains.

According to the study conducted by postdoctoral researcher Rasmus Mannerström of Helsinki University, quite contrary to the common belief, it is the most privileged strata of society that has the most to lose in social upheavals and is most xenophobic and hostile toward other people.

The research identified a social elite consisting of well-educated, mentally well-off people with high incomes. The so-called elite are focused on maintaining the prevailing hierarchies and their own strong position in society, the research suggested.

According to Manneström, social and cultural values have become increasingly important in politics. Issues such as immigration define the political ideology and polarise people to a much greater extent than economic issues.

“Traditionally it has been assumed that the left is liberal and the right is conservative, and there may have been good reasons for it, as social values didn't bear this much weight in politics. Today, it is clear that you cannot draw conclusions about people's values based on their economic preferences, and vice versa”, Mannerström explained to the Hufvudstadsbladet daily.

The research also revealed  increasing polarisation regarding issues such as immigration.

“Few supported any kind of middle ground or golden mean. Instead, the majority of respondents were either strongly in favour or strongly against immigration,” Mannerström reported.

In the research, participants' attitudes were measured and grouped in terms of income differences, social benefits, immigration, the environment and military investments. By analysing the answers, four profiles could be distinguished: left and right liberals, as well as left and right conservatives.

The largest ideological group was the right-wing liberals (44 percent). They were positive about immigration and income differences, but were negative about social benefits. In terms of environment and defence, they were neutral.

Right-wing conservatives (23 percent) constituted the second-largest group; they were positive about income differences and a strong defence, while attitudes to immigration, environmental protection and social benefits were strongly negative.

The third-largest group was formed by the left-wing conservatives (18 percent) who shared the right-wing conservatives' negative attitude towards immigration. But unlike the right-wing conservatives, they were in favour of social benefits and against income inequality, and fairly neutral on the issues of the environment and military spending.

“Where the left-wing conservatives feel solidarity with underprivileged Finns and believe that we should rather take care of Finns rather than immigrants, this way of thinking was not shared among the right-wing conservatives. They are very hierarchical and do not feel sympathy for social groups in weaker position regardless of whether they are Finnish or not,” Mannerström said.

The smallest group consisted of left-wing liberals (15 percent) who were very positive about immigration, environmental protection and social benefits. They opposed income disparities and major defence spending.

Interestingly, one-third of the men surveyed placed themselves into the right-wing conservative bracket, whereas the largest part of women self-identified as left-wing liberal.