Children with an ethnic minority or immigrant background can experience a weak sense of belonging to (e.g., Fleischmann & Phalet,
2018), or even feel alienated from (Leeman & Saharso,
2013), the countries they live in. This may be a logical or even adaptive response to experiences of discrimination and marginalization (Kende et al.,
2020) but it may also hamper their psychological well-being (Wu et al.,
2018) and social adjustment (Berry et al.,
2006). National belonging does not automatically imply assimilation to majority culture as immigrant children can feel connected to the “host” country yet still have a strong ethnic identity (e.g., Berry & Hou,
2016). Schools can be important places for the development and stimulation of national belonging, especially for ethnic minority children whose cultural background differs from that of the national majority group members (Spiegler et al.,
2018). Still, very few studies (Agirdag et al.,
2011) have examined how the school environment can contribute to (ethnic minority) children’s sense of national belonging. Using cross-sectional survey data, the present study tries to make a unique contribution to this emerging literature by examining whether Dutch primary school students (age 9–13 years) of immigrant descent felt a lower sense of belonging to the Netherlands compared to their ethnic Dutch
1 classmates, and whether their national belonging could be predicted by the opportunity for contact with ethnic Dutch classmates, the quality of contact with their teachers, and the perceived diversity norms of their classmates and teachers.
National Belonging
National belonging refers to the emotional involvement of people with the state they live in, and individuals who experience this belonging feel connected to, and at home in their country as well as close to their co-nationals (Ashmore et al.,
2004). National belonging is the affective aspect of national identification (Ashmore et al.,
2004) and considered to be a crucial component of citizenship (Kallio et al.,
2020). If different groups feel connected to the country they live in, their members are more likely to be(come) “good citizens” and to contribute to the common good (Dovidio et al.,
2007). Moreover, national belonging promotes national solidarity, social cohesion, and stability of diverse societies, as well as effective democracy (e.g., Putnam,
2007). National belonging is thus different from assimilation, as the latter means that ethnic minority people give up their heritage culture and fully adjust to the majority culture (Berry et al.,
2006). Actually, research has shown that children with immigrant backgrounds develop both an ethnic and a national identity (Umaña-Taylor et al.,
2014). Also, research suggests that for ethnic minority children to be able to engage in other cultures, such as the national culture, they first have to develop a secure and stable sense of belonging to their ethnic group (Phinney et al.,
2007). This means that someone can experience a sense of belonging to both groups and that these types of belonging do not have to come at each other’s expense. In fact, it is the combination of both, often referred to as integration, that has proven to be beneficial for the socio-cultural and psychological adaptation of ethnic minority youth (Berry et al.,
2006).
Studies in several Western countries have shown that (some groups of) ethnic minority people experience a lower sense of national belonging compared to the ethnic majority group members (e.g., Elkins & Sides,
2007). This seems to hold especially for ethnic minority groups in so-called non-settler countries (i.e., “older” nations with an entrenched indigenous majority population, such as the Netherlands and Germany), compared to settler countries (i.e., nations founded on a long immigration history like the United States and Australia; Simonsen,
2016). In these non-settler countries the national label (e.g., “Dutch”) is often used to refer to the ethnic majority population only. Consequently, the use of hyphenated or dual identities referring to both the ethnic and national identity (e.g., “Moroccan-Dutch”) is less accepted and sometimes even considered problematic by ethnic majority group members (see Verkuyten & Martinovic,
2012). The ethnic, heritage-based representation of who is a national in those non-settler countries can make it more difficult for immigrant and ethnic minority groups to feel included and experience a sense of belonging there (Verkuyten & Martinovic,
2012).
Although previous research on national belonging has primarily focused on ethnic minority adults (e.g., De Vroome et al.,
2014), it is important to study it in ethnic minority youth as well. Research in Western Europe has shown that both ethnic minority and ethnic majority children start to categorize themselves as national group members by the age of 5 or 6 (Barrett,
2002), that national identification can be reliably measured in 8-year-olds already (Oppenheimer,
2011), and that children are able to characterize their own and other national groups (Reizábal et al.,
2004). Moreover, after middle childhood, the way children evaluate groups becomes increasingly context-dependent (Rutland et al.,
2010), and this implies that preadolescence is an appropriate period for stimulating a positive national identity.
There are some indications that ethnic minority youth experience a lower sense of national belonging than ethnic majority youth (e.g., Phinney et al.,
2006). This is unfortunate as national belonging is not only important for their lives as future adult citizens but could also affect them more directly. Research in the United States and Western Europe has shown, for example, that national belonging promotes ethnic minority youth’s educational achievement (Altschul et al.,
2006), school adjustment (Motti-Stefanidi et al.,
2008), and psychological well-being (Wu et al.,
2018). However, it is reasonable to assume that national belonging can be fostered in the school context. Schools are public spaces where students from different backgrounds are taught to learn and work together, and prepared to participate as future citizens in societies that are increasingly diverse (Parker et al.,
2008). Moreover, apart from being potential acculturation contexts where students learn about other ethnic groups and their respective cultures, schools are also institutions of national and civic enculturation where students are taught about the history, political system, and traditions of the country they all live in (see Barrett,
2007).
The present study focused on how the school context could contribute to the national belonging of students of Turkish, Moroccan, and Surinamese descent in the Netherlands. Almost all of these children are Dutch nationals but their immigrant backgrounds set them apart from the “original” inhabits of the Netherlands (i.e., ethnic Dutch). Turks, Moroccans, and Surinamese constitute the largest non-Western minority groups in the Netherlands. The presence of the first two groups is mainly due to labor migration during the 1960s and 1970s and which resulted in further family reunion in the 1980s and 1990s (De Vroome et al.,
2014). Surinamese people mainly immigrated after Surinam, a former colony of the Netherlands, became independent in 1975 (Van Meeteren et al.,
2013). Although there are many differences between Turks, Moroccans, and Surinamese in the Netherlands, all of these groups have a minority status in the country. That is to say, they face discrimination (for example on the labor market; Andriessen et al.,
2012) and have, on average, lower educational attainment compared to ethnic Dutch people (De Vroome et al.,
2014).
According to
Intergroup Contact Theory (Allport,
1954), positive contact with members of a particular out-group (i.e., another group than one’s own) can promote positive feelings toward that group as a whole (for a meta-analysis, see Pettigrew & Tropp,
2006). One of the explanations for this generalization effect is that positive intergroup contact makes the out-group (“them”) less different from the in-group (“us”) and thereby stimulates the development of a common identity, that is to say a sense of belonging to a shared group (see the
Common In-Group Identity Model; Dovidio et al.,
2007). In case of contact between immigrants and ethnic majority populations, this common identity can take the form of a national identity. This is especially important in non-settler countries where the ethnic majority population is seen as representative for the country as a whole and where it might be initially more difficult for ethnic minority children to identify as nationals (see Munniksma et al.,
2015). Indeed, several studies in these non-settler countries suggest that contact with ethnic majority group members can increase national belonging in ethnic minorities (e.g., Kende et al.,
2020).
Intergroup Contact theory has been extensively tested in the school context (see Tropp & Prenovost,
2008), and although contact can take negative forms such as discrimination or conflict research, the mere opportunity for contact tends to have a positive effect overall. For this reason, and also because it included classrooms without ethnic majority students, the present study focused on opportunities for contact with out-group peers (rather than the quality of this contact). Just a few contact studies have examined children’s national belonging. Still, research has shown that students with an immigrant background in both primary (Agirdag et al.,
2011) and secondary schools (Gharaei et al.,
2018) reported a stronger sense of national belonging when they had more ethnic majority classmates, and thus more opportunities for contact with the ethnic majority out-group. Therefore, it was expected that ethnic minority students with a larger share of ethnic majority classmates would have a stronger sense of national belonging.
Whereas school-based research on intergroup contact has almost exclusively focused on the impact of peers (Tropp & Prenovost,
2008), teachers seem to play a role as well (see Thijs et al.,
2018). Teachers can be considered representatives of the national educational system, and in many countries most of them have an ethnic majority background (Thijs & Verkuyten,
2012). Therefore, teachers might function as a bridge to the “host” society for students with immigrant backgrounds, and close (i.e., warm and supportive) relationships with them
2 can be regarded a form of positive intergroup contact which contributes to the development of a common national identity and a sense of national belonging. Indeed, previous research has found a link between teacher support and the national identification of German primary school children over time (Spiegler et al.,
2018). Furthermore, a study in the Netherlands found that ethnic minority students who had a closer relationship with their teacher had more positive attitudes towards Dutch people in general. This effect was stronger in classrooms with a smaller share of ethnic Dutch peers (Thijs & Verkuyten,
2012), indicating that contact with a teacher becomes even more important for ethnic minority students who have less opportunities for contact with ethnic majority peers. A comparable finding was obtained among students in Islamic primary schools in the Netherlands – where the school population exclusively consists of Muslim students with mainly immigrant backgrounds. Those students had Muslim classmates only and reported a stronger national belonging if they had a non-Muslim as compared to a Muslim teacher (Thijs et al.,
2018). Unlike the earlier Dutch studies, the present study examined national belonging in ethnic minority students from non-Islamic schools. It was expected that a close relationship with their teacher would increase ethnic minority students’ sense of national belonging, especially in classrooms with fewer ethnic majority peers.