Principled Disagreements: Adhesion to Intergroup Justice Standards in the Context of the Belgian Linguistic Conflict

Abstract

According to the “Waffle” model of the Belgian Linguistic Conflict (Klein et al., 2012), this conflict centres around two main dimensions: One concerns the use of language across the territory and the second concerns the distribution of resources between the two main linguistic communities, Dutch-speakers and French-speakers. The model suggests that the two groups adhere to different justice principles regarding these issues and that these disagreements are a function of the intensity of the conflict. With respect to the first dimension, Dutch-speakers are expected to adhere more to a principle of linguistic territoriality than French-speakers who should be more in favor of a free choice of one’s idiom across the territory. With respect to the second dimension, the model posits that Dutch-speakers will adhere more to an equity principle whereas French-speakers should adhere more to a need principle. We tested these hypotheses in the context of a large-scale survey involving two waves: in May 2011 in the middle of a political crisis, and in June 2014, when the conflict was appeased. The pattern of “disagreements” in a subsample that participated in both waves of the survey (N = 378) is consistent with the Waffle model and, as expected, more severe at the heart of the conflict (in 2011) than after pacification (in 2014). However, differences were driven mostly by supporters of the Flemish nationalist party N-VA. Moreover, endorsement of principles on both dimensions are predictive of separatist attitudes in the Dutch-speaking sample whereas only the first dimension plays a role for the French speaking sample.

A social psychological perspective on World War II collaboration in the 21st century: A Belgian case

“…We decided to keep them in the analyses as separatists do indeed exist in Belgium and are an important part of this study. TA B L E 1 Subsamples' characteristics Preferred political prospects correspond to four contrasted perspectives for the future of Belgium (see Klein et al, 2017) ranging from more integration to more separation: (a) augmented integration ("The linguistic regions will come together to establish a more unified government"); (b) no change ("The organization of the Belgian federal state will remain unchanged"); (c) more autonomy for the regions ("The linguistic regions will become more and more autonomous, but the Belgian state will remain") and (d) radical separation ("Belgium will split into two independent states"). These items were rated on a 7-point scale going from 1 (=not at all desirable) to 7 (=very much desirable).…”

“…Both subsamples-Francophones and Flemish-share highly similar characteristics (see Table 1). The same data collection procedure has been used in several studies in the same context (Klein, Bouchat, Azzi, & Luminet, 2017;Klein, Licata, Van der Linden, Mercy, & Luminet, 2012;Rimé et al, 2015). Each item of the questionnaire was presented in a strict alternation of languages in order to avoid any precedence effect.…”

Selecting Talented Migrants: Majority and Minority Perspectives

“…However, in the capital city of Brussels, Francophones are the majority, and at the national level, the Walloon "minority" speaks the historically dominant language, creating tensions for the Flemish "majority" (van Velthoven, 1989). Moreover, the Flemish perceive themselves as a minority in comparison to the larger, transborder, French-speaking group; the recent success of Flemish nationalist and separatist movements illustrate this strenuous relationship with the Belgian nation (see also Klein, Bouchat, Azzi, & Luminet, 2017). As such, Belgium is a multigroup country characterized by a certain ambiguity when it comes to determining which group is the majority.…”

“…However, counter to Hypothesis 2a, Flemish majorities showed significantly weaker Belgian identification than Walloon minorities. This is likely due to Flemish nationalist and separatist movements that reflect a strenuous relationship between this numerical majority group and the Belgian nation (see Billiet et al, 2003; Klein et al, 2017). Given this inconsistency, stronger identification with the country was not associated with significantly increased support for an individualized immigration policy in Belgium, even though the effect was in the expected direction.…”