This morning the New York Times reports …
on a report. The International Migration Organization issued its annual report,
available for $60, where it looked at, among other things, public perceptions of the presence of immigrants. In Italy, where
7% of the people are foreign-born, respondents believed that a quarter of all people
were immigrants.
In the US, respondents thought up to 39% of Americans were immigrants. Whew! Only 14% of Americans are immigrants. Countries like Switzerland, New Zealand, and Qatar have much higher proportions of immigrants than the US. Switzerland?!?
In the US, respondents thought up to 39% of Americans were immigrants. Whew! Only 14% of Americans are immigrants. Countries like Switzerland, New Zealand, and Qatar have much higher proportions of immigrants than the US. Switzerland?!?
In a recent study
by Harvard Business School Professor Michael Norton and Duke University
Professor Dan Ariely, public perceptions about wealth are totally different
from reality (see below, 'Estimated' is what people thought the inequality was). 82% of the wealth in the
US is held by the top 20% of the population. But people think that the top
20% own about 56% (more than a quarter less!). And in Americans’ ideal, the top 20% would own just over 30%, making it
more equitable than Sweden.
So Americans think there are more immigrants. And they think
our society is MUCH more equitable than it is. (By the way, these
misperceptions are not only American. For example, in Argentina nearly everyone
thinks they are middle class.)
Next week, I'll write about the American Dream and other myths.
I agree that there is a lack of good information, but I think there is a more complex set of reasons why the perceptions are the way they are.
ReplyDeleteFirst, many of the current wave of migrants in the world are from the "Global South," and are ethnically and racially marked, which makes their offspring marked as well. So, even if you have birthright citizenship, because of the color of your skin or distinct ethnic practices, people assume that you are a foreigner. So, when you include the second and third generation of Latinos, for example, and the perception of them as non-American, the number of perceived immigrants becomes inflated. Related to this and to the lack of information, is the perception among many that ALL immigrants are ILLEGAL immigrants, which inflates the perception of the size of that population as well.
Second, is the issue of self-justification and confirmation bias. Social psychology research shows that people like to believe in their own choices and often construct theories post hoc to justify their actions and beliefs. So, regarding the economic inequities, if we end up believing that the U.S. is unjust, and we simultaneously have little power to change it, it could have disastrous effects for our individual psyches. We are then prisoners of social structures, with little possibility of change-few people would want to believe that. It is more "hopeful" to believe that life and society is fair and that we get what we deserve (and by extension, others, like the poor and immigrants, get what they deserve). If we did not believe that, it would rock us to our core and would force us to change some real fundamental things about the way we operate. That type of change is really scary for many people, even if it would benefit them in the long run.
Thanks for taking the time to comment! Great ideas. I agree that without enough information about who the immigrants are, color of skin is taken as proxy for being an immigrant, and in the case of Latinos, as proxy for being an undocumented immigrant. So I think it should be part of the goal of (at least) civil society to put immigrants and others in contact, and to disseminate information about them, etc. That is part of the role of community leaders and scholars, etc. But even when people have skin colors that are less visually striking, people always find some other criteria to distinguish (I'm thinking of the 1880-1920 wave). And they then use that criteria as a proxy for insider/outsider.
ReplyDeleteI'd not seen the psychological basis for what I think of as the American Dream ideology. When people think they can make it, that the system lets them succeed, they remain more hopeful. I was going to write about that next week! But people in different social systems don't seem devastated, like in Scandinavia. They are maybe a bit less ambitious, perhaps. In France, they are also more conscious of the social structures, I think, but still believe that they must fight for their beliefs, and we see more popular, democratic participation. I'm not expecting a revolution, with sharp changes, I'm a bit hopeful about people being able to stand up for their values, when informed.