Acculturation orientations
and
language use patterns
Intergenerational differences of Moroccans
living in the Netherlands
Masterthesis
Faculteit Geesteswetenschappen
Opleiding Communicatie- en Informatiewetenschappen
Specialisatie Interculturele Communicatie
Begeleider: Dr. K. Yağmur
Astrid Lansbergen
s764233
10 oktober 2008
Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1
3
Theoretical framework
1.1
1.1.1
1.1.2
1.1.3
Acculturation
Definitions of acculturation
Berry’s acculturation framework
Bourhis’ Interactive Acculturation Model
1.1.3.1 State integration policies
1.1.3.2 Acculturation orientations of immigrants
1.1.3.3 Acculturation orientations preferred by host society members
1.1.3.4 Host community acculturation orientations & state integration policies
1.1.3.5 Host community and immigrant community acculturation orientations
1.1.4 Factors influencing the acculturation process
4
4
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
1.2
1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
Identity
Definition and functions of identity
Three levels of analysis
Identification
Relationship between identity and identification
Social categorization
12
12
13
13
14
15
1.3
1.3.1
1.3.2
1.3.3
1.3.4
Ethnicity
Definitions of ethnicity
Approaches to ethnicity
Relationship between ethnic identity and language
Relationship between ethnic identity and acculturation
16
16
17
17
18
1.4
Language
1.4.1 Language shift and maintenance
1.4.2 Factors promoting language maintenance and shift
1.4.2.1 Kloss: clear-cut versus ambivalent factors
1.4.2.2 Smolicz: core values theory
1.4.2.3 Giles: ethnolinguistic vitality
Chapter 2
19
19
19
19
20
20
Moroccans in the Netherlands
2.1
Socio-demographic statistics
2.1.1 Moroccans in the Netherlands (1996-2007)
21
21
1
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.1.4
2.1.5
2.1.6
Geographical distribution
Age distribution
Educational level
Moroccan nationality
Prognosis 2010-2050
22
23
24
24
25
2.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
Moroccans in the public domain
Institutional support
Religiosity
Moroccans in the media and in the public discourse
Perceived discrimination
25
25
26
27
27
Chapter 3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
Research questions and hypotheses
Data collection instrument
Participants
Procedure
Chapter 4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
28
28
31
33
Results
Section 2: multicultural index
Section 3: Dutch and Moroccan identity
Section 3: factors that determine identity
Moroccan identity versus Dutch identity
Religious beliefs
Social network
Section 6: foreigners in the Netherlands
Section 7: language use
Chapter 5
5.1
5.2
Method
34
36
37
39
45
46
52
54
Conclusions and discussion
Conclusions
Discussion
62
63
References
65
Appendix 1: Questionnaire in Dutch
70
2
Introduction
This study examines the intergenerational differences in acculturation orientations of
Moroccans living in the Netherlands. Throughout the last decades, a lot of research has been
done in the field of acculturation. Oftentimes, this research focused on a cross-cultural
psychology approach, in which the psychological effects of acculturation were studied. The
enormous effect of language on one’s cultural identity and on one’s acculturation strategies
was not, or insufficiently, taken into account. As a contribution to the current literature, this
study combines both the cross-cultural psychology viewpoint and a linguistic viewpoint. A
potential connection between language use patterns and acculturation strategies will be
investigated. The Moroccan group was chosen because they make up the second largest
immigrant group in the Netherlands, and because their image, as created in media and set
forth in the public discourse, is not very positive. It is interesting to see if the groups’
perceived treatment influences acculturation strategies, opinions on living in a multicultural
society, and language use patterns.
3
Chapter 1
Theoretical framework
1.1
Acculturation
1.1.1 Definitions of acculturation
Acculturation covers the changes that arise following contact between individuals of different
cultural backgrounds. Following the classical definition by Redfield et al. (1936),
acculturation can be described as “those phenomena which result when groups of individuals
having different cultures come into continuous first hand contact, with subsequent changes in
the original cultural pattern of either or both groups”. Even though this definition is more than
seventy years old, it is interesting to see that even in that time it was already acknowledged
that acculturation encompasses bidirectionality: changes as a result to continuous contact can
occur within both groups. However, according to Berry (2001) the contact experiences have
much greater consequences for the non-dominant group than for the dominant group.
Acculturation can either be viewed as a process or as a state. Acculturation as a process
implies changes over time in, for instance, beliefs, emotions, attitudes, values, behavior and
identification patterns of people who are in first-hand contact with people representing
another culture. These changes are empirically hard to measure, since they can only be found
by carrying out longitudinal studies and these are seldom feasible (Liebkind, 2003).
Acculturation as a state is concerned with the measurement of the amount or extent of
acculturation at a given moment; it has to do with the behavioral, affective and attitudinal
characteristics of the acculturated individual (Ward, 1996).
Graves (1967) made a distinction between acculturation as a collective or group-level
phenomenon, and psychological acculturation in which acculturation is considered to be a
change in the psychology of the individual. This distinction is important because not all
individuals participate to the same degree in the general acculturation being experienced by
their group, and because the kinds of changes that take place at the two levels are often
different. At the group level, described by Ait Ouarasse (2003) as ‘general acculturation’, the
changes might be in either the social structure of the group, the economic base, or the group’s
political organization. At the individual level, the kinds of changes taking place might be in
identity, values, attitudes and behavior. Moreover, the rate at which changes take place within
the individual may differ (Berry, 1990; 1997). The characteristics of successful acculturation
have been defined in terms of mental and physical health, psychological satisfaction, positive
self-esteem, competent work performance and, for students, good grades (Ward, 1996).
Most of the research on acculturation is conducted within cross-cultural psychology. Among
the numerous theories of acculturation two main perspectives can be distinguished. The first
perspective emphasizes a linear process. In this view, acculturation is almost fully equated
with assimilation and viewed as an unidirectional linear process of acquiring the host
society’s values and behaviors (Nguyen et al, 1999). Cultural adaptation to the mainstream
4
then goes hand in hand with a loss of attachment to one’s own ethnic and cultural ties
(Stevens et al, 2004). The second perspective in research on acculturation places an emphasis
on cultural pluralism and is bi-dimensional: ethnic groups and their members preserve their
heritage cultures in varying degrees, while adapting to the mainstream society (Laroche et al,
1998). In this perspective, it is stressed that ethnic group members can either have strong or
weak identifications with both their own and the mainstream cultures. More importantly,
Phinney (1990) stresses that a strong relationship with one’s heritage culture does not
necessarily imply low involvement with the dominant culture. The most widely researched
bidimensional approach to acculturation is Berry’s acculturation framework (1990; 1997).
1.1.2
Berry’s acculturation framework
Berry’s (1997) acculturation framework starts from the viewpoint that in all plural societies,
cultural groups and their individual members in both dominant and non-dominant situations
have to decide how (and to what extent) they will acculturate, and to what extent they
consider cultural identity and cultural characteristics to be important (cultural maintenance).
Besides that, they have to determine to what extent they want to become involved in other
cultural groups, or whether they want to remain primarily among themselves (contact and
participation). These two issues are the basis of a conceptual framework which posits four
acculturation strategies.
If an individual chooses to maintain his own cultural identity and to participate in the larger
society, the integration option is chosen, implying that some degree of cultural integrity is
maintained while the individual simultaneously seeks to participate as an integral part of the
larger society. Berry (1997) stresses that this strategy can only be pursued in multicultural
societies in which certain psychological pre-conditions are established. These pre-conditions
are: the presence of a positive multicultural ideology, relatively low levels of prejudice,
positive mutual attitudes among cultural groups, and a sense of attachment to, or identification
with, the larger society by all groups (Berry & Kalin, 1995). When the individual chooses not
to maintain his cultural identity and to adopt the identity of the larger society, the assimilation
option is chosen. Assimilation can thus be described as the will of the foreigner to become
more and more like the host members, whilst losing the own cultural identity in the process. If
the own cultural identity is considered to be important to be maintained and the individual
generally avoids interaction with the larger society, separation is the preferred strategy.
Finally, marginalization results from the decision to not maintain the own cultural identity
and to not participate in the larger society either.
What makes this model different from other models of acculturation within cross-cultural
psychology, is that it explicitly distinguishes between cultural and social dimensions, and that
it acknowledges their relative independence of each other (Liebkind, 2003). The integration
option is the most preferred acculturation strategy, which also shows the strongest relationship
with positive adaptation. Marginalization is the least beneficial strategy for adaptation, while
assimilation and separation are intermediate. This pattern has been found in virtually every
5
study and is present for all types of acculturating groups (Berry, 1997). Stevens et al (2004)
show that the majority (53%) of their sample, consisting of 783 adult and 387 adolescent
Moroccans living in the Netherlands, approached Berry’s integration strategy. They show
moderate attachment to Dutch people and culture, and high attachment to Moroccans. When it
comes to acculturation, both the adults and adolescents scored relatively high on Dutch
acculturation items and high on Moroccan acculturation items. About one third of the sample
(37%) can be categorized as the separation class. They use the Dutch language less often,
have less Dutch friends and identify less with Dutch people than members of other classes.
Ait Ouarasse (2003) also shows results that are in line with the bidimensional model of
acculturation. In his study, Moroccan adolescents show separation in the areas of food and
religion, and integration or assimilation in the area of politics. A similar pattern was reported
by Arends-Tóth (2003).
Even though Berry’s model has been tested and validated repeatedly, some scholars have
expressed criticism. For example, Noels et al (1996) state that the model assesses attitudes
toward acculturation and these attitudes may not be consistent with actual behavior. Besides
that, identity may not necessarily follow the same acculturation pattern as attitudes. Another
weakness of the framework is that, for clarity reasons, it only represents ‘yes or no’ answers
to the questions and contextual and situational factors are not taken into account.
1.1.3 Bourhis’ Interactive Acculturation Model
The main contribution of Bourhis et al’s (1997) Interactive Acculturation Model is its
emphasis on the intergroup nature of the acculturation process. The interactive acculturation
model acknowledges that acculturating minority groups are not always free to choose their
own acculturative strategies; both state policies and public opinions can have a substantial
impact on the acculturation orientations of ethnic minorities. In democracies, state policies
can also be influenced by the acculturation orientation found to be most prevalent among
members of the dominant group(s) in society.
The aim of the model is to identify particular forms of intergroup relations, resulting from
different combinations of attitudes and strategies preferred by the two cultural groups in
contact. Bourhis et al (1997) propose four clusters of integration ideologies that states can
foster. The four clusters are arranged on a continuum that ranges from the pluralism ideology,
via the civic and assimilation ideology, to the ethnist ideology. Every cluster produces
specific public policies concerning the integration of immigrant groups. Bourhis et al (1997)
note that this continuum is mainly ideological and that there might be discrepancies between
official and actual integration practices.
1.1.3.1 State integration policies
In a country where the pluralism ideology is upheld, the state supports, upon request, the
private activities of minority groups. This means that immigrants can maintain key features of
6
their cultural and linguistic values, while adopting the public values of the host society. To
accomplish this, it is necessary that it is considered of value to the host community that
immigrants maintain their cultural distinctiveness. A country that has a civic ideology also
values the cultural distinctiveness of minority groups, and expects that immigrants adopt the
public values of the host country. The key difference with the pluralism ideology is that in
civic ideology no state funds are spent on the maintenance or promotion of the private values
of particular groups or individuals, there is a state policy of non-intervention.
As with the pluralism and civic ideologies, the assimilation ideology also expects that
immigrants adopt the public values of the host country. But in this case, immigrants are
expected to abandon their own cultural norms and values for the sake of the culture of the
dominant group. This assimilation can occur voluntarily or through specific laws that limit the
immigrant’s cultural distinctiveness to the home domain. At the end of the continuum the
ethnist ideology can be found. Countries which uphold this ideology expect immigrants to
adopt the cultural values of the host nation in the public domain and, where possible, also in
the private domain. In some cases immigrants are not accepted, legally or socially, as rightful
citizens of the host society and therefore they do not receive the same rights as the host
society members.
1.1.3.2 Acculturation orientations of immigrants
The Interactive Acculturation Model consists of two elements. The first element presents the
acculturation orientations that immigrants can adopt, depending on their desire to maintain
their heritage culture and their wish to adopt the culture of the host society. The orientations
integration, assimilation and separation are based on the acculturation strategies from Berry’s
acculturation framework (1997), as described in section 1.1.2. Berry’s marginalization
orientation is changed into the dual anomie and individualism orientation. Anomie is another
word for the cultural alienation that is experienced, according to Bourhis et al (1997), by
individuals who reject both their heritage culture and that of the host society. Immigrants who
dissociate themselves from both their ethnocultural origin and the host majority culture, might
prefer to identify themselves as individuals rather than as members of a group, choosing the
individualism orientation.
1.1.3.3 Acculturation orientations preferred by host society members
The second element of the model consists of the acculturation orientations preferred by
members of the host society. Three of these orientations are also based on Berry’s
acculturation framework. If the members of the host society find it acceptable that immigrants
maintain their cultural heritage and accept that immigrants adopt the culture of the host
community, the integration orientation is preferred. The assimilation orientation implies that
host community members expect immigrants to give up their cultural identity for the sake of
the majority culture. In this case, the dominant group does not find it acceptable that
immigrants maintain their own cultural identity. When a segregation orientation is preferred,
7
members of the host community distance themselves from immigrants by not wanting them to
adopt the majority culture, though they accept that immigrants maintain their heritage culture.
Host community members who do not find it acceptable that immigrants maintain their
cultural identity and who do not accept that immigrants adopt the cultural identity of the host
community can either have an exclusion or individualism orientation. The first, exclusion,
corresponds to the situation in which members of the host community refuse to allow
immigrants to adopt features of the host culture. Individualism is an orientation in which host
community members define themselves and others as individuals rather than as members of
groups.
1.1.3.4 Host community acculturation orientations & state integration ideologies
State integration policies are expected to influence the acculturation orientation of host
majority members, and dominant host majority members are likely to influence the integration
policies of the state. The hypothesis of the Interactive Acculturation Model is that a match
should exist between the acculturation orientation preferred by host community members and
their support for the corresponding state ideologies. Host community members whose
acculturation orientation is integrationist are likely to favor a pluralism ideology, while
assimilationist host community members are likely to expected public policies along the civic
to assimilationist range. Host community members who have segregationist acculturation
orientations are likely to support assimilationist and ethnic state policies. Exclusionist host
community members are expected to support state policies that reflect the ethnist ideology,
while individualists are more likely to support policies that range on the pluralism to civic part
of the continuum.
1.1.3.5 Host community and immigrant community acculturation orientations
The host community acculturation orientations as described in section 1.1.3.2 and immigrant
acculturation orientations (section 1.1.3.3) can be combined within one conceptual framework
(table 1.1).
As outlined in this framework, relational outcomes can be either consensual, problematic or
conflictual, depending on the acculturation orientations of both groups, and on the group
vitality. The group vitality is “that which makes the group likely to act as a distinctive and
collective entity within the host society.” (Bourhis et al, 1997). It is based on demographic
variables, institutional control and status variables such as social prestige. The host majority
usually enjoys a strong vitality position, while immigrant groups usually have low to medium
vitality within the country of adoption. Immigrant groups with low vitality are likely to be
more vulnerable to the impact of dominant host majority orientations.
8
Table 1.1: Relational outcomes of host community and immigrant acculturation orientations: the Interactive Acculturation Model.
Source: Bourhis et al, 1997.
1.1.4 Factors influencing the acculturation process
Individuals who begin their acculturation process have diverse demographic and social
characteristics. In this paragraph the following factors that might influence the acculturation
process will be discussed: age, gender, educational level, migration motivations and
expectations, cultural distance to the majority group and personal factors.
First of all, one’s age can play a major role in the acculturation process. When acculturation
starts at a young age the process is generally smooth. The reason for this is not clear: maybe
enculturation into the minority culture is not sufficiently advanced, or maybe personal
flexibility and adaptability are maximal during these early years (Berry, 1997). CBS data
shows that most Moroccans are relatively young when they move to the Netherlands: the
majority of the immigrants was between 18 and 30 years old at time of migration. Ait
Ouarasse (2003) shows that older Moroccan immigrants are less favorable to their own
culture. This could be a consequence of involvement and immersion in the public sphere. This
might mean that older immigrants are psychologically more open to acculturation, which can
lead to a more smooth acculturation process.
Gender can have a variable influence on the acculturation process. CBS data shows that
48,4% of the Moroccan immigrants in 2007 was female, while 51,6% of them were male.
According to Berry (1997) there is substantial evidence that females may be more at risk for
problems than males. This generalization could be explained by looking at the different
9
treatment of females in the two cultures: when women attempt to take on new roles in the
society of settlement, they may come into conflict with their heritage culture, placing them at
risk. Ait Ouarasse (2003) shows that this is also the case for the Dutch context. His study
shows that Moroccan females are more favorable toward the Dutch culture than males are,
because they can live more independently in the Netherlands than is the case in Morocco.
Moroccan men feel that they have less status in the Netherlands and therefore report less
positive attitudes toward the Dutch culture.
Several studies have shown that a higher educational level is predictive for lower stress (e.g.
Beiser et al, 1988; Jayasuriya et al, 1992, Berry, 1997). According to Berry (1997) several
rationales have been suggested for this relationship. Firstly, educated people are generally
better able to analyze and solve problems since they usually improved these skills in their
school career. Besides that, higher educated people usually have a higher income, a better
occupational status and an extensive support network, which are protective factors in
acculturation processes. A third explanation is that educated people are better prepared for the
problems they might encounter in the society of settlement, since they have already learnt
about languages, history, values and norms. People who are lower educated might have also
learnt these things, but less explicitly than higher educated people. The Moroccans in the
Dutch context are generally lower educated: 21 percent of men and 27 percent of women have
only finished elementary school and 73 and 67 percent respectively have finished high school
or intermediate vocational education. Only 5,9% of men and 5,7% of women are high
educated (CBS, 2008).
Reasons for migration are studied in terms of push and pull motivations and expectations.
Push motives include involuntary or forced migration which leads to negative expectations,
pull motives include voluntary migration and lead to more positive expectations. Kim (1988)
found that people with high push motivations had more psychological adaptation problems.
However, those with high pull motivations had the same number of problems. The
explanation given by Kim (1988) shows that these migrants might have had unrealistic
expectations about their life in the new society. Not seeing these expectations being met, lead
to even greater stress. According to CBS data of 2004, most of the Moroccan immigrants
came to the Netherlands to form (57,5%) or reunite a family (26,1%), which are both pull
motives.
The distance between the culture of the country of origin and the culture of the country of
settlement is also a factor that influences the acculturation process. The greater the cultural
differences, the less positive is the adaptation (Berry, 1997). When the distance between the
two cultures is greater, there is need for more culture learning. Besides that, large differences
might trigger negative intergroup attitudes, and induce greater culture conflict leading to a
poorer adaptation. The difference between the Moroccan culture and the Dutch culture can be
described as rather great. Morocco has a value system based on Islamic beliefs, and most of
the Moroccans who came to the Netherlands come from rural areas. Life in these areas cannot
be compared to Dutch rural or city life.
10
Lastly, personal factors affect the course of acculturation. Personal traits that are proposed to
be risk factors are locus of control and introversion/extraversion (Ward & Kennedy, 1992).
Locus of control refers to an individual's generalized expectations concerning where control
over subsequent events resides. In other words, who or what is responsible for what happens.
An individual can believe that control of future outcomes resides primarily in oneself, which
means that he has a more internal locus of control. A person with an external control expects
that control is outside of oneself, either in the hands of powerful other people or due to fate.
Due to collectivistic cultural and religious values, Moroccans generally have a more external
locus of control, while Dutch people are more individualistic and generally have a more
internal locus of control. An individual with an external locus of control has a less assertive
attitude and might be more reserved in the acculturation process, while a person with an
internal locus of control is more assertive and more willing to change the course of one’s life.
The same explanation can be given to the factor of introverted and extraverted personality
characteristics. However, consistent findings concerning personal factors that affect the
course of acculturation are rare because the external situational factors of the new cultural
setting matter greatly.
11
1.2
Identity
1.2.1 Definition and functions of identity
Identity can be defined in its simplest form as the everyday word for people’s sense of who
they are (Joseph, 2004). A more specific definition is given by Verkuyten (2005), who
describes identity as “the key word for conceptualizing the relationship between the
individual and society. It tells us something about how people place themselves and others in
their social environment, and how such positions get personal meaning and value.” Questions
of identity are seen as the result of a continuing process of construction, choice and
negotiation. Frequently, a distinction is made between ‘social identity’, ‘ethnic identity’,
‘religious identity’ and ‘national identity’, but just as often these concepts are wrongly used as
synonyms. Tajfel (1981) defines social identity as “that part of an individual’s self concept
which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together
with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership”. Social identities are
formed and defined in the social world. Minority members may want to change their social
identity but not necessarily at the cost of losing their ethnic identity. Ethnic identity is a
communal and individual identity expressed as an idea of ‘our people, our origins’, which
clearly varies in the intensity with which it is felt and expressed (Fenton, 2003). It is more
focused on common descent and on a cultural heritage shared because of this common
descent (Joseph, 2004). Empirically, ethnic identity has been treated as the ethnic component
of social identity, as ethnic self-identification, as feelings of belongingness and commitment,
as a sense of shared values and attitudes, or as attitudes toward one’s own group (Liebkind,
2003). National identity is based on political borders and autonomy, often justified by
arguments of shared cultural heritage (Joseph, 2004).
Identity has a double function: it informs the out-group of one’s membership and allows ingroup members to assess one’s status within the group (Joseph, 2004). Identity forms a link
between the individual and the surrounding society. According to Verkuyten (2005),
approaches can either take the society or the individual as starting point. When the society is
the starting point, sociocultural circumstances and structures are crucial. The social
environment determines, or at least structures, what people do, feel and think, and people are
seen as passive recipients of imposed identities. This approach has a clear limitation: humans
and their identities are more than just reflections of the cultures in which they have been
raised. In approaches that start with the individual, the emphasis is on one’s own meanings
and autonomous actions. Identity is then considered to be the result of individual choices,
personal meanings and assertions. This approach also has a clear limitation: when the social
environment is not taken into account, the possibility that people might belong to various
social circles and that ethnicity alone does not determine people’s social networks might be
overlooked. An ideal approach, therefore, takes both the individual and the society as starting
point.
12
1.2.2 Three levels of analysis
House (1977, 1981 – as cited in Verkuyten, 2005) introduced the Personality and Social
Structure Model for explaining and situating different approaches to social identity. This
model allows for a systematic conceptualization and investigation of the relationships and
influences among three levels of analysis: personality, interaction and social structure.
Verkuyten (2005) refers to these levels as individual, interactive and societal. The first level
consists of intraindividual processes and personal characteristics which are studied in terms of
the self. Ethnic identity can then be examined in terms of identity status, self-schemas, selfesteem and identification. The second level, the level of interaction, mediates between the
other two because it is in interactions where societal relations, beliefs and norms and values
are produced and changed, and where a sense of self and identity is formed. This level refers
to the dynamics of both concrete and everyday contacts in many different situations. Ethnic
identity can be examined in terms of an ongoing process of social definitions and
negotiations. The third level involves political, ideological, cultural and economic features.
Ethnic identity is then investigated in relation to state regulations, transnationalism, economic
changes, and ideologies. Most crosscultural psychology studies focus on the first level, while
this study aims to focus more on the second and third level.
1.2.3 Identification
Defining oneself as a member of an ethnic group does not necessarily imply that one
identifies with that group. Identification entails a psychological intentional or unintentional
process; it is more than just placing oneself in the same category as others: it is about wanting
to be and feel at one with an other (Verkuyten, 2005). In most research on ethnic
identification, a one-dimensional approach is used. Identification with the own group and
identification with other groups are then wrongfully seen as the same process: when people
identify more with one group; they stop identifying with the other.
Verkuyten (1999) proposes a model of identification in which identification is studied in
relationship with the own group and with the receiving society. The model consists of two
dimensions: identification with the minority group, which can be either high or low, and
identification with the majority group, which can also be high or low. When identification
with both groups is high, the identification is integrational. This is the case for 53% of
Stevens et al’s (2004) sample. Other concepts that are used to describe this position are
bicultural, dual and hybrid identification (Verkuyten, 1999). For a long period of time, this
position was seen as a position of denial, and ‘life between cultures’ (Watson, 1977). Several
studies have shown that a bicultural self definition does not automatically cause psychological
conflict (e.g. Ballard, 1979; Kitwood, 1983; Ullah, 1987). To what extent a particular identity
is considered relevant depends on the circumstances or situations under which the distinctions
are made, and on the relations between and within the groups that are socially categorized
under those circumstances (Wentholt, 1991).
13
When the individual identifies more with the majority group than with the minority group, the
assimilative position is chosen. This is the case, for example, when Moroccan people in the
Netherlands describe themselves as only Dutch. When a self definition with both groups is
denied, the chosen identification form is marginalization. Lastly, when the individual
identifies more with the own cultural group than with the majority group, a dissociative
position is chosen. Stevens et al. (2004) show that this is the case for 37% of their sample:
they identify less with Dutch people and more with Moroccan people. It is not coincidental
that these four terms correspond with the concepts used in Berry’s acculturation framework.
The major difference is that Berry’s framework is focused on acculturation strategies, whereas
this two-dimensional model is used to determine group identification patterns. In the present
study both dimensions are investigated.
In empirical research these four forms of identification can be determined by using forcedchoice tests, in which the respondent has to choose between feeling either Dutch or Moroccan
in different contexts. The dual identification with both groups should be included as well.
Several studies among minority groups in the Netherlands show that all four forms of
identification are found. A self definition in terms of the own ethnic group or of both ethnic
groups is most common, while the assimilative and marginal positions are rare. Numerous
external factors play a role, such as the social-economical position, visible differences,
discrimination and racism, cultural values as group loyalty and social control and
geographical circumstances (Verkuyten, 1999). Personal characteristics, personal
circumstances and the individual experiences influence the position that individuals choose
for themselves.
Even though this model gives a valuable insight into the interaction between the minority and
majority groups, the position is only based on these two groups while other minority groups in
the society could also be influential. Besides that, generational differences are not taken into
account while it might be possible that older generations have a stronger identification with
their own group than younger generations (Rosenthal & Feldman, 1992). This possible
generational difference is tested in this study.
1.2.4 Relationship between identity and identification
According to Wentholt (1991), the relationship between identity and identification can be
expressed in at least four different ways. First, identification can correspond to an existing
social distinction: there is identification with a group to which one is expected to belong.
Secondly, identification with the group that one is expected to belong to can be resisted or
denied. This often leads to criticism from the co-ethnics. Thirdly, an individual can
theoretically also identify himself with an ethnic group that he does not belong to, but an
identity claim should always be recognized and validated by significant others. The fourth
form of the relationship between identity and identification is based on admiration or
involvement. Then, the identification can be independent from existing social divisions.
Verkuyten (2005) remarks that identification does not always have to correspond with social
14
identity. He distinguishes identification as a psychological process whereas social identities
involve processes of social construction.
People prefer identifications that bring positive social identities, and thereby positive
collective self-esteem (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992). For minority groups, identification with a
group can provide a buffer against the effects of stigma, a source of belonging with other
minority members and their experiences, and a condition for effective political action
(Verkuyten, 2005). Identification is not just about distinguishing yourself positively from
others; it is also about building affective relationships with the social environment.
1.2.5
Social categorization
Wentholt (1991) proposes that a combination of three related components is needed for the
membership of a collectivity of some sort to form a social identity: social classification (the
sociostructural component), specific behavioral and normative consequences and expectations
bounded to the category (the cultural component) and judgments of an ontological nature (the
ontological component). The sociostructural component is a basic cognitive process in
identity and intergroup relations: categorization always implies selection because only certain
characteristics are made meaningful.
But not all possible classifications constitute social identities, a second component is
necessary: accompanying manifestations of behavior, behavioral consequences, and
normative expectations. When an individual is put into a category, there are always
stereotypical expectations about how that person will and should behave. Not only the
outsiders have these expectations, but also people belonging to the same category. The third
component is the accompanying judgment of the people that are categorized. Knowing to
which category someone belongs to, leads to an ontological judgment about this person
(Verkuyten, 2005). People who belong to the same group are supposed to share invisible
characteristics and to differ from others.
15
1.3
Ethnicity
1.3.1 Definitions of ethnicity
According to Fenton (2003), ethnicity refers to the social construction of descent and culture,
and the meanings and implications of classification systems built around them. Guibernau and
Rex (1997) say that ethnicity is made up out of relationships between groups whose members
consider themselves distinctive. These groups may be ranked hierarchically within a society.
Generally, the Moroccan group is placed low on the hierarchical ladder in the Netherlands,
while groups like the Surinamese and Antilleans are placed higher. Since the feeling of
distinctiveness is subjective, it is always subject to reinterpretations and adjustments,
depending on the present circumstances. In that sense ethnicity is dynamic, changeable, and
socially constructed (Verkuyten, 2005). A person’s ethnicity is ascribed in the sense that one
cannot choose the ethnic group in which one is born, but it is achieved to the extent that the
meaning it acquires for one’s total identity is a matter of choice (Liebkind, 2006). Just as in
acculturation, mutual contact plays a big role: groups and identities have developed as a result
of mutual contact rather than isolation. The claim of common ancestry implies continuity
through time; it is used to bind people together to some degree. For some ethnic groups, the
idea of origin and kinship can be the core value, while for others the focus can be more
strongly on cultural characteristics such as religion, tradition or language. Verkuyten (2005)
calls these characteristics ‘boundary markers’ because they are used to make a distinction
between the own group and the other group. For Moroccans in the Netherlands, religion is
considered to be a core value for their group identity (Ait Ouarasse, 2003).
Guibernau and Rex (1997) distinguish four different categories of ethnic groups. The first
category they mention is the urban ethnic minority, which mainly consists of non-European
immigrants in European cities. The research on this group is focused on problems of
adaptation, ethnic discrimination, identity management and cultural change. The second type
of ethnic group that can be pointed out is the group of indigenous peoples, for example in
Australia. Thirdly, the proto-nations can be distinguished. These groups are territorially based
and differentiated according to class and educational achievement. There are often political
leaders, who claim that they are entitled to their own nation on basis of their unique ethnic
background. The fourth kind of ethnic group is the ethnic group in plural societies. These
societies are colonially created states with culturally heterogeneous populations, in which the
groups are regarded as (and regard themselves as) highly distinctive. In the Netherlands the
discourse is mainly about the first and the fourth category.
In the Netherlands, the term ‘ethnicity’ is typically used to refer to minority groups. The
majority group members view themselves as normal and categorize others as ‘ethnical’. But
the majority group members can also define themselves in terms of a belief in common
descent and shared origin (Verkuyten, 2005).
16
1.3.2 Approaches to ethnicity
Verkuyten (2005) distinguishes two approaches to ethnicity: the circumstantial approach and
the primordial approach. In the circumstantial approach the emphasis lies on structural
conditions, political strategies, and ideological determination. The focus is more on the
external circumstances and conditions that shape ethnic identities: ethnic groups are seen as
the product of political, residential, economic, legal, and historical circumstances. In
primordial approaches the emphasis lies on the emotional and imperative nature of ethnicity.
The focus is, then, more on the sense of ethnic identity: ethnicity is something deeply
meaningful to individuals. Symbols, stories and myths are used as binding factors and
ethnicity can sometimes provide answers to existential questions and give the individual the
feeling that he is a valuable member of a group. These two approaches are complementary; to
focus on one of the two approaches would lead to an incomplete picture. Banks (1996)
described the two approaches as ethnicity in the head and ethnicity in the heart.
Empirical studies on ethnic identity generally assume ethnic identity to derive from
membership of one group only (Liebkind, 2006). But in multiethnic societies there is a variety
of groups in relation to whom people define their ethnic identity (Verkuyten, 2000). As a
consequence, a single ethnic label may be inaccurate. Ethnic minority members typically form
multiple group alliances and may define themselves as partly ethnic and partly mainstream.
Some alliances might be more important to them than others. The basic hierarchy between
them changes slowly (Liebkind, 2003). For first-generation immigrants it is unlikely that their
ethnic identity changes easily, but for second and subsequent immigrant generations the use
of a bicultural label becomes more common (Phinney, 2003). Even though the strength and
positive valence of ethnic identity may decline from the first to the second generation, the
decline is much slower in later generations. Generation is not, however, the strongest
predictor of ethnic identity. Ethnic identity change is strongly related to retention of ethnic
cultural involvement and largely independent of orientation towards the dominant culture
(Phinney, 2003).
1.3.3 Relationship between ethnicity and language
Ethnicity is linked to language indexically, implementationally and symbolically (Fishman,
1989). When an ethnic group is under threat or feels discriminated against or marginalized,
especially the symbolic factor of language becomes important. Language becomes more
important than any other ethnic symbol, because it is the expresser of patrimony. It easily
becomes more than a means of communication, it becomes a prime ethnic value in itself
(Fisman, 1989). Fishman states:
“The point is not whether ethnic boundaries and their link to language are real or specious,
genuine or created, valid or exaggerated, self-serving or altruistic, ethnocentric or objective,
dividing or unifying. The point is that ethnicity is an inevitable dimension of aggregative
definition and action as well as occasionally a deeply felt, a deeply moving and a deeply
17
meaningful one. [..] Ethnicity is there, for all of mankind some of the time and for some of
mankind all of the time. It behooves us, at the very least, to try to understand why this is so, as
well as its link to language.” (Fishman, 1989, p 7-8).
The phenomenology of language and ethnicity may reveal how the language is characterized
as well as why it has come to be the way it is; which of the current features are particularly
significant; what communication tactics are employed across boundaries; what potential and
latitude exist with respect to mutability of the language and what its mission is.
1.3.4 Relationship between ethnic identity and acculturation
The two concepts ‘ethnic identity’ and ‘acculturation’ are often used almost interchangeably
(Nguyen et al, 1999). Hutnik (1991) found no correlation between ethnic identification
patterns on the one hand and cultural attitudes and behavior on the other. She concludes that
ethnic identification may lag behind or run ahead of cultural adaptation and that there is only
a very moderate relationship between the two. Snauwaert et al (2003) found that ethnic
minority members are less inclined to identify with the host population than to adopt the
culture of the host society or have regular contacts with its members. This illustrates that a
strong attachment to one’s own minority culture is not necessarily incompatible with an
integration orientation. According to Liebkind (2006) acculturation should be conceptualized
as a broader construct than ethnic identity, encompassing a wide range of behaviors, attitudes
and values that change with contact between cultures.
The interactional model of acculturation proposed by Phinney et al (2001) suggests that the
relationship between ethnic identity and acculturation is influenced by the particular settings
and by the minority members’ perceptions of their place in those settings. This relationship is
likely to be moderated by a number of additional factors. Several researchers (e.g. Berry,
1997; Phinney, 1990; Phinney et al, 2001; Liebkind, 2003) have emphasized the importance
of contextual influences on the relationship between acculturation orientations and
acculturation. In addition, Phinney et al (2001) have stressed that the ethnic identity of
immigrants and their role in acculturation can best be understood in terms of an interaction
between the attitudes and characteristics of the minority group and the responses of the
receiving society, moderated by the particular circumstances of the minority group and the
immigrant policies of the society. However, Liebkind (2003) notes that evidence for links
between policies and ethnic identity is generally weak. Some studies show that the decisive
factors for identity formation and psychological adaptation are not national policies, but more
local circumstances, personal relationships and activity settings such as school and
neighbourhood. Ethnic minority members may acculturate to some degree, but they maintain
the freedom to explore, rediscover or reject their ethnic identity (Liebkind, 2003).
18
1.4
Language
1.4.1 Language shift and maintenance
There are many different definitions of language shift but basically, a language in the process
of shift is partially or completely replaced by another, usually more dominant, language
(Ammerlaan, 1997). The functions of the language which is under threat in a particular
migration context, gradually become limited and the number of domains in which the
language is used decreases. Eventually, the non-dominant language is replaced by the
dominant one in all language use domains and at all language levels (Pauwels, 1985).
Although shift can happen at the individual or intergenerational level, the term language shift
most frequently refers to an intergenerational process, in which a language is imperfectly
transmitted from one generation into the next. In other words, language shift does not so much
occur within one generation, but rather between generations.
In migrant contexts the shift from the first (L1) to the second language (L2) is often
completed within three or four generations: the first generation is dominant in the L1 and less
dominant in the L2, while the second generation consists of more or less stable bilinguals. By
the third generation, the L2 becomes dominant, while the fourth generation is monolingual in
the L2. This is a general model, the speed of the intergenerational language shift can differ
greatly. Language shift can be observed most clearly in the public domains. The home domain
is usually the last domain where language shift occurs; the language that is spoken in the
home domain partially determines the rate of language shift. Language maintenance is the
neutral or positive counterpart of language shift. (Waas, 1996).
1.4.2
Factors promoting language maintenance and shift
When factors that promote language maintenance are discussed, usually the theoretical
models of Kloss (1966), Smolicz (1981) and Giles et. al., (1977) are presented to interpret or
explain inter-ethnic differences in language maintenance rates. Kloss (1966) proposed a
distinction between factors clearly promoting language maintenance or shift and ambivalent
factors. Smolicz' Core Values Theory (e.g. 1981) and Giles' Ethnolinguistic Vitality Theory
(1977) are used to explain why in some situations groups tend to shift to the second language,
while in the same situations other groups hold on to their home language much longer.
1.4.2.1 Kloss: Clear-cut versus ambivalent factors
In Kloss' model of clear-cut and ambivalent factors, he makes a distinction between those
factors that clearly promote language maintenance or shift (clear-cut factors) and those factors
that can lead to either language maintenance or shift depending on their interaction with other
factors. The clear-cut factors that promote language shift are mainly exogamy and cultural
similarity to the dominant culture. The clear-cut factors that promote language maintenance
can be listed as: an early age of migration, regular contact with other in-group-members
19
(Kloss specifically mentions the membership of a denomination with parochial schools but in
my opinion this can be stretched to every situation in which there is regular contact between
in-group members, whether it concerns religion or other factors that are shared within the
group) and pre-migration language maintenance experience. Groups whose language was
challenged before, will hold on to their language more strongly.
The ambivalent factors identified by Kloss are the educational level of the migrant, the
numerical strength of the group, the linguistic and cultural similarity of the group with the
dominant group, attitude of the majority group towards the minority language and group and
interethnic differences. It could be argued that 'time of immigration' is an ambiguous factor
since the dominant policies and attitudes will change and effect language shift or language
maintenance accordingly (Clyne, 2003).
1.4.2.2 Smolicz: Core values theory
According to Smolicz (1981), every group or culture has a set of specific values that are
perceived to be crucial to the groups' existence. In some groups, language is considered of
central importance to the cultural value system, whereas the role of language is peripheral in
the value systems of other groups (Clyne & Pauwels, 1997). Language is usually the most
effective as a core value where it is linked to other core values such as religion and/or
historical consciousness and where such intertwined core values necessitate the use of the
language for particular purposes (Clyne, 2003). This is certainly the case in Morocco, where
the Arabic language is linked to religion and history. Some cultural groups have consistently
stressed their language as the principal carrier of their culture and relied upon it as the main
defense mechanism against assimilation. In the case of such language-centered cultures, their
survival in a viable form is deemed by the group members to depend on the preservation of
their mother tongue. In these instances the language is more than a medium of communication
and self-expression. It is a symbol of ethnic identity and a defining value, which acts as a
prerequisite for 'authentic' group membership (Smolicz, 1992). For the Berbers coming from
Morocco this might be the case. Their language has been under threat for many years during
the French and Spanish occupation and is still under threat now, with Moroccan-Arabic being
the dominant language in Morocco.
1.4.2.3 Giles et al: Ethnolinguistic Vitality
The third model that has been presented to explain interethnic differences in language
maintenance rates is the Ethnolinguistic Vitality Theory of Giles. The theory is derived from
Tajfel's (1974) theory of intergroup relations and Giles et al's (1975) speech accommodation
model. Its attraction lies in the fact that it comprises components, which reflect not only
'objective' factors (e.g. economic status, socio-historical and demographic factors) but also
'self perception' (e.g. perceived social status). The model mostly focuses on stable minority
situations and on situations where there are two dominant languages, but the different
components of the model have provided important insights.
20
Chapter 2
Moroccans in the Netherlands
2.1. Socio-demographic statistics
The Moroccan group is currently the second largest group in the Netherlands. Their
immigration started in the second half of the 1960s, when recruiting contracts were signed to
facilitate the temporary migration of labor workers. The recruiting process in the Netherlands
was stopped at the time of the oil crisis in 1973. At that time, there were 13,202 Moroccan
workers living in the Netherlands (Obdeijn, 1993). Shadid (1979) shows that only 13% of
them were officially recruited by the Dutch companies. Most of the workers were recruited to
work in France and moved to the Netherlands on their own. Of the workers that were
recruited, 70% had no education at all. According to Obdeijn (1993) the Dutch recruiters
selected low educated people because little opposition was expected from them. The number
of recruited Moroccans that were expected to stay in the Netherlands was estimated to be less
than 5% (Wentholt, 1967). There are two reasons why their time of residence was prolonged
time after time: the employers wanted the workers to stay longer to save settling and coaching
expenses and the Moroccan workers, in their turn, were often keen on staying because of
increasingly strict entry requirements. In 1975 the number of Moroccans in the Netherlands
had increased to 55,000 and in 1992 to 190,000.
2.1.1 Moroccans in the Netherlands (1996-2007)
The CBS (Central Bureau of Statistics) started to list the origin and number of migrant groups
in 1996, by registering the birth country and the birth country of parents. These statistics can
be used to determine how many first and second generation Moroccans are living in the
Netherlands. In the CBS statistics, the first generation is defined as ‘a person who is born in a
foreign country with at least one parent born in a foreign country’. The second generation
consists of people who are born in the Netherlands and of whom at least one parent is born in
a foreign country. The birth country of both parents was registered, which allows two groups
to be formed: second generation Moroccans with one parent born in Morocco and second
generation Moroccans with both parents born in Morocco.
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
First
generation
Moroccans
(born in
Morocco)
140 572
142 533
145 604
149 269
Second generation
Moroccans (born in the
Netherlands)
One parent
born in
Morocco
6 925
7 464
8 074
8 850
Both parents
born in
Morocco
77 591
82 844
88 304
94 174
Total of
first and
second
generation
Moroccans
225 088
232 841
241 982
252 293
21
152 540
155 669
159 605
163 280
166 464
168 400
168 504
167 893
167 258
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008*
9 626
10 621
11 716
12 982
14 347
15 924
17 580
19 234
20 998
100 055
106 462
112 803
119 070
125 408
131 497
137 155
142 366
146 952
262 221
272 752
284 124
295 332
306 219
315 821
323 239
329 493
335 200
Table 2.1: Number of Moroccans living in the Netherlands according to generation, 1996-2008.
Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, 2008. * estimated by CBS.
As table 2.1 shows, the number of Moroccans living in Netherlands has increased with over
100,000 people in the past eleven years, but the annual increase has stabilized somewhat. The
total sum of Moroccans living in the Netherlands in 2008 is estimated to be 335,200 people,
of which 167,258 were born in Morocco (first generation) and 167,950 were born in the
Netherlands with one or two parents born in Morocco (second generation), of which 20,998
people have one foreign parent and 146,952 people have two foreign-born parents. There are
no figures available of so-called third generation Moroccans (people who were born in the
Netherlands with two parents of Moroccan descent who were also born in the Netherlands),
since people with two Dutch-born parents are registered as ‘Dutch’ in the statistics of the
CBS. Despite of this, there are statistics on people who have two parents born in the
Netherlands and one or more Moroccan grandparent(s). In 2005, this group was estimated to
include about 2,000 people. More precise CBS-figures of 2007 show about 3,200 Dutch
people with one or more Moroccan grandparent(s) and about 965 people with four Moroccan
grandparents. These figures show that the third generation has doubled in the last two years.
2.1.2
Geographical distribution
According to Shadid (1979), in the 1970s the migrant labourers were mainly concentrated in
the large urban centres of the western and central parts of the Netherlands: most of them were
living in the Zuid-Holland and Noord-Holland provinces. This can be explained by
considering a number of factors such as the development rate of the region, employment
possibilities, chain migration and the (former) location of industries. This original
geographical distribution of the 1970s can still be recognized in the figures of 2007, as
presented in table 2.2.
2007
Groningen
Friesland
Drenthe
First
generation
(born in
Morocco)
691
1 043
650
Second
Total
generation
(one or both
parents born
in Morocco)
813
1 110
714
1 504
2 153
1 364
22
Overijssel
Flevoland
Gelderland
Utrecht
N-Holland
Z-Holland
Zeeland
N-Brabant
Limburg
1 960
4 357
9 723
23 172
46 739
51 991
1 017
18 103
8 447
2 232
4 818
9 492
21 717
42 812
49 533
1 102
19 198
8 059
4 192
9 175
19 215
44 889
89 551
101 524
2 119
37 301
16 506
Table 2.2: Number of Moroccans living in the Netherlands according to province, 2007.
Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, 2008.
As table 2.2 illustrates, nowadays most Moroccans (83%) live in Noord-Holland, ZuidHolland, Utrecht and Noord-Brabant. Only small groups of Moroccans can be found in the
provinces of Groningen and Drenthe where, respectively, only 0,3% and 0,4% of all
Moroccans live. This table demonstrates that the Moroccans are still mainly concentrated in
the central and western regions of the country. Van Praag (2006) shows that 48% of the
Moroccans lives in the four main cities Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Den Haag and Utrecht,
compared to only 13% of the Dutch. In the same report, Van Praag shows that there is not
much difference between the geographical distribution of the first and second generation, but
the younger second generation (25 to 34 years old) lives slightly less concentrated than their
preceding generation.
2.1.3 Age distribution
In table 2.3 the distribution of age groups is presented. This table shows that the Moroccans
older than 40 years old belong almost exclusively to the first generation, which means that
they were born in Morocco. This can be explained considering the history of migration; most
of the Moroccans came to the Netherlands in the 1960s and 1970s as young workers. The
most first generation Moroccans are between 30 and 40 years old, another large group is 20 to
30 years old. By far, most of the youngest groups of second generation Moroccans (those who
were born in the Netherlands), have two parents born in Morocco. An increase can be
witnessed in the youngsters with one parent in Morocco, which shows that this is becoming
more common.
2007
First
generation
Moroccans
(born in
Morocco)
Age
0-10
10-20
1 662
7 522
Second generation
Moroccans (born in the
Netherlands)
One parent
born in
Morocco
11 813
4 149
Both parents
born in
Morocco
61 963
49 962
Total of
first and
second
generation
Moroccans
75 438
61 633
23
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70+
Total
31 713
52 439
36 336
18 411
15 000
4 810
167 893
2 066
1 114
88
4
19 234
26 755
3 683
2
1
142 366
60 534
57 236
36 426
18 415
15 001
4 810
329 493
Table 2.3: Number of Moroccans living in the Netherlands according to age, 2007.
Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, 2008.
2.1.4 Educational level
Van Praag (2006) shows that the educational level of Moroccans is low, compared to other
ethnic groups in the Netherlands, but increasing rapidly because the second generation
Moroccans are receiving education in the Netherlands. Women are generally lower educated
than men. In 2002/2003 39% of the Moroccan women had received no education at all or just
a few years of elementary school. With men this was 26%. Figures of the CBS show that
about one third of Moroccan youngsters (20-24 years old) is without any diplom, while
another 37% only has a diplom of high school. These figures also include the marriage
partners who came from Morocco in this period. Of them, 60% does not have any diplom
(Van Praag, 2006). About 20% of the Moroccans between 15 and 64 years old has a diplom of
mbo level and about 8% of them is high educated (hbo or university level).
2.1.5 Moroccan nationality
It is also fascinating to see how many of the Moroccans living in the Netherlands have only
Moroccan nationality, since this can be an indication for the ascription of one’s identity.
Age
<20
20-65
65>
Total
Men
10 961
26 156
3 395
Women
10 226
27 234
2 546
Total
21 187
53 390
5 941
80 518
Percentage
of total
group*
15,5%
29,6%
49%
24,4%
Table 2.4: Number of Moroccans in the Netherlands with Moroccan nationality, 2007.
Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, march 2008. Percentage of total group: percentage of Moroccans living in
the Netherlands who only have Moroccan nationality.
Table 2.4 shows that of the Moroccans older than 65, almost half only has the Moroccan
nationality. This percentage is around one third for 20 to 65 year olds and less than one sixth
for the Moroccans who are younger than 20 years old. In total about 25% of the Moroccans
living in the Netherlands only has Moroccan nationality.
24
2.1.6 Prognosis 2010-2050
In the previous paragraphs we have seen how many Moroccans live in the Netherlands now
and how this number has expanded throughout the years. For a complete and realistic view, it
is just as important to see how this number is likely to develop in the next fifty years. The
following table shows the prognosis of the number of Moroccans living in the Netherlands in
the period 2010-2050, according to the CBS.
Year
2007
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
First
generation
Moroccans
(born in
Morocco)
167 893
168 051
170 187
172 560
174 655
176 155
176 910
176 647
174 961
171 536
Second generation
Moroccans (born in the
Netherlands)
One parent
born in
Morocco
19 234
22 979
28 671
33 100
36 467
39 142
41 380
43 367
45 206
46 907
Both parents
born in
Morocco
142 366
156 660
177 450
192 359
202 813
210 701
217 351
223 318
228 680
233 285
Total of
first and
second
generation
Moroccans
329 493
347 689
376 306
398 016
413 935
426 003
435 637
443 327
448 857
451 737
Table 2.5: Prognosis of Moroccans living in the Netherlands. Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, march 2008.
This table shows that the CBS expects that the number of first generation Moroccans coming
to the Netherlands will slowly increase until 2035 and after that decrease gently. The number
of second generation Moroccans with one parent born in Morocco will more than double,
while the number of second generation Moroccans with both parents born abroad will
increase in a lower rate. Because of the increase of second generation Moroccans, the total
number of Moroccans in the Netherlands will increase to 450.000. As explained before, it is
impossible to predict how many third generation Moroccans will live in the Netherlands,
since children of two Dutch-born parents are registered in the statistics as “Dutch”.
2.2
Moroccans in the private domain
2.2.1 Institutional support
The Dutch Social and Cultural Planning Bureau (SCP) published figures of the number of
organizations attached to the different ethnic groups in the Netherlands (Van Heelsum et al,
2004). The most recent figures show that earlier research (Van Heelsum, 2001) yielded 681
Moroccan organizations in the Netherlands, of which 171 are religious Islamic organizations
and mosques (25%). In 2000 there was approximately 1 organization on every 400 Moroccans
25
in the Netherlands. In 2002, only 1% of Moroccans was a member of a religious organization,
but 25% of Moroccans say that they participate in one or more activities offered by religious
organizations (Phalet & Ter Wal, 2004). The Turkish group had 1125 organizations, which is
approximately 1 organization on every 266 Turkish people. Of course these organizations can
mostly be found in areas where the geographical distribution of Turkish and Moroccans is the
highest: mostly in the western part of the Netherlands and in the four big cities.
The most important Moroccan religious organization is the Union of Moroccan Muslim
Organizations (UMMON), an umbrella organization for most Moroccan mosques which says
to represent the ‘official Moroccan Islam’, the Islam that corresponds to the views of the
Moroccan king Mohammed VI . This shows to what extent the Moroccan culture and religion
are intertwined, and to what extent religion is politically engaged. Besides religious
organizations there are also many local and regional cultural organizations which represent
the Moroccans in the Netherlands. Organizations that operate nationally are for example SMN
(Samenwerkingsverband van Marokkanen in Nederland – Coöperative Venture of Moroccans
in the Netherlands) en MVVN (Marokkaanse Vrouwen Vereniging Nederland – Moroccan
Women Organization Netherlands). De Graaf (1985) describes how local Moroccan youth
organizations in the Netherlands mainly have a social function. Sometimes informative
meetings are organized, but there is not much political influence. Van Heelsum (2004) shows
that Moroccan religious organizations fulfill a crucial role for Moroccans in the Netherlands.
Through their network they are able to spread information and they can mobilize people.
Moreover, they can be a mediator between the Moroccans and the local governmental
institutions.
2.2.2 Religiosity
Recently, Moroccan religious groups have been frequently discussed in the media. Both the
government and the general public fear for radicalism and fundamentalism amongst young
Moroccans with limited future prospects. The Dutch parliament has asked for a broad
investigation into diversity and change in the religious orientations of Muslims in the
Netherlands. Surveys of 1998, 1999 and 2002 show that secularization is an ongoing process
amongst young Moroccans and higher educated Moroccans. Of the younger generation, only
one third says they visit the mosque every Friday, while of the older generations about 50%
visits the mosque every week. Young Moroccans say they pray less than the older generation,
and their social life is less built on religious participation (Phalet & Ter Wal, 2004). Phalet
and Ter Wal (2004) also show that Moroccans with high participation grades in the Dutch
society, are less religiously active and that Moroccans who have a good understanding of the
Dutch language, have more contacts with the majority group and who watch more Dutch
television, are less religious. At the same time, the majority of Moroccans continue to identify
themselves with Islam: while only 60% of Dutch people say they would describe themselves
as religious, 97% of Moroccans consider themselves Muslim (Sociale Positie en
Voorzieningengebruik Allochtonen, 2002). For 75% of Moroccans ‘being Muslim’ is an
important part of their identity. Moroccans who are more focused on their own ethnic group
26
are also more focused on the Islam. The second generation Moroccans are more
individualized in their religious beliefs; it has become more common to give individual
meaning to what religion should be.
2.2.3 Moroccans in the media and in the public discourse
The image of Moroccans in the media and public discourse is generally rather negative.
Young Moroccans are often associated with criminal behavior (Lubbers et al, 1998) and
separation and resistance to change (Hagendoorn, 1991). Lubbers et al (1998) report in a
study of media image of Moroccans in the Netherlands that the three main Dutch newspapers
exposed their readers to an average of four stories a week, either criminalizing or
problematizing a second-generation Moroccan.
Phalet and Ter Wal (2004) show that the public interest in Moroccans has increased and that
the tone in the media debate has changed. In media coverage about Moroccans, the most
common theme is religion (25% of all coverage is about Islam), followed by criminal
behavior (20%) and discrimination, intolerance and prejudice (18%). The most discussed
issues concerning religion in de Volkskrant are homosexuality, Islamic schools, head scarves
and extremism (Phalet and Ter Wal, 2004, p. 43-44).
2.2.4 Perceived discrimination
Discrimination against ethnic minority groups is well documented. Socioeconomically and
educationally disadvantaged groups are often the victims of prejudice, stereotypes, and
discrimination (Verkuyten, 1998). Perceived discrimination was reported to be related to
aggression, sadness and anxiety (Dion & Earn, 1975). A distinction can be made between
personal and group discrimination, which is related to the distinction between personal and
social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Perceived personal discrimination may affect one’s
sense of control over events and outcomes and thereby produce feelings of helplessness.
Group discrimination has less extreme consequences for the individual, but it makes the
individual feel that he is part of a minority group. Koomen & Fränkel (1992) showed that
among the Surinamese group in the Netherlands, perceived discrimination affected life
satisfaction negatively.
According to Ait Ouarasse (2003), young Arabs in France are seriously affected by
discriminatory practices. Young Moroccans in the Netherlands who adopt integrationist
strategies appear to be less well treated than their co-ethnics who opted for assimilationist
strategies (Van Oudenhoven & Eisses, 1998). Verkuyten (1998) found that among young
Moroccans in the Netherlands, higher perceived discrimination predicts lower levels of selfesteem. In countries with clear integrationist tendencies like Australia and New Zealand, less
discrimination is reported. Countries that are more monocultural and assimilationist also
report more discrimination (Ward, 2001).
27
Chapter 3
3.1
Method
Research questions and hypotheses
The main goal of this study is to investigate possible intergenerational differences in
acculturation orientations of first and second generation Moroccans living in the Netherlands.
The key research question is: “What is the degree of relationship between acculturation
orientations and language maintenance or shift of different generations?” The following
subordinate questions can be distinguished:
a) Which acculturation orientation can be found amongst two generations of Moroccans in the
Netherlands? and b) Does language maintenance or language shift take place within two
generations of Moroccans in the Netherlands? c) To what extent do Moroccans in the
Netherlands support home language and cultural maintenance? These sub questions lead to
the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: The first generation Moroccans are, in line with Berry’s acculturation
framework, expected to have a more seperationist acculturation orientation, while the second
generation prefers to integrate into the Dutch society. The future third generation is likely to
move more in the direction of assimilation.
Hypothesis 2: Minority group members with a more seperationist or marginalist acculturation
orientation, will maintain their home language across generations, more than minority group
members with a assimilationist or integrationist acculturation strategy are expected to do.
Hypothesis 3: Although both generations are generally bilingual, it can be expected that the
second and third generation shift more towards the second language (Dutch).
Hypothesis 4: All generations will be in favour of bilingualism and biculturalism in the public
domain, while they prefer cultural maintenance in the private domain.
3.2
Data collection instrument
This study is part of a larger research in which several migrant groups in the Netherlands are
examined. For this reason, a standardized 13-page questionnaire was developed to be used for
all groups. This questionnaire is divided in seven numbered, subsequent sections. In some
cases a short explanation or introduction is given. The questions are preceded by a one-page
introduction in which the goal of the research is described and in which a short explanation of
the five-point Likert answering scale is given, since most of the seven sections contain Likert
answering scales. The introduction also states the confidentiality and anonymity of this
research and an indication of time needed to finish the questionnaire (15 minutes). The name,
e-mail address and phone number of the researcher are indicated to facilitate questions and
remarks. The full questionnaire can be found in the appendix.
Section 1 of the survey consists of personal details such as sex, birth date, birth country, birth
country of both parents, current place of residence, educational level, marital status, place of
birth of the spouse and number of annual returns to the home country. These personal details
28
are independent variables used for analyzing methods only. The second section consists of ten
statements on the Dutch multicultural society. A matrix question with a five-point Likert scale
was constructed to determine to what extent the respondent agrees with the given statement.
The possible answers range from one to five, one meaning ‘totally disagree’, three meaning
‘neutral’ and five meaning ‘totally agree’. The main purpose of this section is to determine the
respondent’s opinions of living in a multicultural society.
The third section is about the Moroccan and Dutch culture and starts with a multiple choice
question (see table 3.1) to determine the group the respondent feels he belongs to: the
Moroccan group, the Dutch group, to both groups equally or to another group. This question
is vital because it shows the respondent’s self-identification. To make this sense of group
identification more explicit, the next question consists of two statements about feeling
Moroccan or Dutch.
Table 3.1: the first three questions of section 3 of the questionnaire.
As can be seen in table 3.1, in these statements the respondent is asked to which degree he
feels Moroccan and to which degree he feels Dutch. Again, the possible answers range from
one to five, on a continuum from ‘totally disagree’ to ‘totally agree’. After that, the next two
matrices present twenty statements about belonging to one of both groups. This section ends
with four questions (including two five-point matrices) on Moroccan and Dutch culture,
norms, values, traditions and so on.
Section 4 is about religious beliefs. It begins with a short introduction to explain why
questions about religion are relevant in this study. The section consists of 18 statements about
Islam, in which questions are asked considering the importance of religion in daily life and
the relationship between religion and identity. Since the vast majority of Moroccans are
Muslims it was not considered relevant to ask questions about other religions.
Section 5 consists of a matrix question with 23 statements considering social relationships
with Moroccan and Dutch people. Again, a five-point Likert answering scale is used. The
29
second last question of this section is a ranking question: the respondent is asked to rank five
social groups according to whom they spend most time with. The groups that have to be
ranked from one to five are: family, Moroccan friends, Dutch friends, Moroccan
acquaintances and Dutch acquaintances. They group most time is spent with, is given number
one. The least time is spent with number five. See table 3.2 for an example of this question. In
the SPSS analysis the number one answer received ten points, the number two eight points,
and so on. In this way, the item that receives the most points is spent the most time with and
the item that receives the least points is spent the least time with.
Table 3.2: the ranking question in which the respondent is asked to rank five social groups in order of time that is spent with them.
Section 6 starts with a question about minority groups in the Netherlands. The respondent is
asked to respond to statements about expected minority group behavior in public, at the job
and in schools and at home. The goal of this section is to determine what the minority group
acknowledges as normal behavior in a minority-majority group context. The statements are
about language use and about fostering Dutch or Moroccan norms and values in the private
and public domain. Table 3.3 shows the section about the private domain, in which the first
statement is “Allochthonous people are allowed to speak their mother tongue at home”. The
answer scale ranges from ‘totally disagree’ (1) to ‘totally agree’ (5).
Table 3.3: part of question 15 in section 6: expected minority group behavior in the private domain.
30
The items in section 7 are about language use, language preference and language status. No
division was made between Arab and Berber language since the goal of this section is to
determine whether the Dutch or the foreign language is used and preferred in various
situations. It is not considered relevant to know which of the two languages is used since no
information was asked concerning the group descent and no equal groups of Arabs and
Berbers were targeted. In the analysis this data can be used to determine possible
intergenerational differences in language use and language preference.
3.3
Participants
For this study 98 questionnaires were returned, of which 5 were invalid. Of the 93 remaining
respondents 48,4% is female and 51,6% is male. About 10% of them has no education or only
elementary school education. 23,7% has finished high school and 62,8% has a higher
education (meaning: mbo, hbo, university or comparable). The age distribution is shown in
table 3.4.
Age group
Sex
< 20
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-55
56-60
60>
Total
Frequency
4
5
8
11
7
8
3
5
10
6
6
2
4
4
4
3
0
1
2
0
Frequency
total
9
Percent
9,7%
19
20,4%
15
16,1%
8
8,6%
16
17,2%
8
8,6%
8
8,6%
7
7,5%
1
1,1%
2
2,2%
93
100%
Table 3.4: age distribution of participants according to age group and sex. N=93.
To establish whether the respondents are first or second generation Moroccans, both the birth
country and the birth country of the parents are considered to be important. About one third of
the respondents is born in the Netherlands, 63,4% of them is born in Morocco. None of the
respondents was born in another country. An overwhelming majority of 98,9% of the
respondents says their father was born in Morocco. Only one father was born in the
Netherlands. The same picture can be seen with the mothers; 89,2% of them was born in
31
Morocco, while almost eleven percent of the mothers was born in the Netherlands.
First
generation
Moroccans
(born in
Morocco)
Male
Female
Total
34
25
59
Second generation
Moroccans (born in the
Netherlands)
One parent
born in
Morocco
Both parents
born in
Morocco
2
5
7
12
15
27
Total of
first and
second
generation
Moroccans
48
45
93
Table 3.5: generational distribution of the participants according to sex. N=93.
According to the definition of the CBS, as explained in section 2.1.1, 63% of the respondents
in this study are first generation Moroccans, meaning that they were born in Morocco and
both of their parents were also born in Morocco. The remaining 37% consists of second
generation Moroccans, of which 20,6% has one parent born in Morocco and 79,4% has two
parents born in Morocco. None of the respondents can be seen as a so called third generation
Moroccan, meaning that both of their parents were born in the Netherlands.
In average, the respondents who were not born in the Netherlands (N=59) have been living
here for 18,8 years. The minimum time of residence in the Netherlands is 3 years, the
maximum is 40 years. 46,2% of the respondents is not married. Of the 53,8% that is married,
79,6% has a Moroccan spouse. 14,3% is married to someone who was born in the Netherlands
(unfortunately it is not specified whether these spouses are of Moroccan descent or not) and
6% has a spouse who was born elsewhere (e.g. Spain and the USA). The 93 respondents come
from each of the 12 provinces of the Netherlands, but by far most of them come from the
province of Noord-Brabant (52,7%). More specifically, 17 respondents are currently living in
Tilburg, and 9, 8 and 6 respondents respectively live in the following cities or the
surroundings: Breda, Bergen op Zoom and Eindhoven. After Noord-Brabant, most
respondents come from the provinces of Zuid-Holland (10,8%), Noord-Holland (9,7%) and
Utrecht (7,5%), the area that is often referred to as the Randstad. The four provinces named
here are also the provinces with the largest numbers of Moroccan inhabitants, as was shown
in section 2.1.2.
Most of the respondents (57%) return to Morocco once a year. About one third returns once
every two years and 6,5% return once every three years. Only 3 respondents (3,2%) return to
Morocco more often than once a year.
32
3.4
Procedure
For this study, respondents of 18 years and older were selected from different parts of the
country. Data collection took place in March and April 2008. Besides the age criterion, there
were no additional criteria for place of residence, birth country or birth country of the parents,
but a varied group of respondents and an equal distribution of males and females was
targeted. To achieve this goal, the respondents were approached in several different ways.
Moroccan cultural organizations, network organizations, intercultural student organizations
and religious institutions in different parts of the country were contacted, which yielded
limited results.
In order to possibly reach third generation Moroccans, students at the University of Tilburg
were contacted and appeals were made on websites which are visited regularly by young
Moroccans. This produced about 25 responses. Moroccan visitors to a symposium were
contacted personally by the researcher. To increase the amount of responses, flyers were
designed and duplicated 200 times. The flyers were handed out on the street, in Moroccan
stores and cafés, in supermarkets, libraries and shopping malls. A worker in a factory in
Roosendaal took the initiative to multiply his flyer 80 times and distribute them in Eindhoven
and ‘s Hertogenbosch. Because he was unhappy with the result, he multiplied his flyer 50
times more and distributed them in the surroundings of Roosendaal. This has led to about half
of the responses.
The respondents were asked to fill out a questionnaire on paper or on Internet. The procedure
and the questions were exactly identical in both situations. The decision was made to use an
online version because Moroccans are known to be one of the most active groups on the
internet (Obdeijn, 2001). The spread through Internet also ensured data collection throughout
the country and not just in one province. Besides that, signals were received from respondents
that they preferred an online version over a paper version. In total about 20% of the
questionnaires was filled out on paper, and 80% of them was filled out online. To attain a
snowball-effect, all respondents were asked to send the questionnaire to friends, relatives and
neighbors.
33
Chapter 4
4.1
Results
Section 2: multicultural index
Section 2 of the questionnaire consisted of 10 statements concerning the multicultural society.
The respondents were asked to evaluate the statements using a Likert answering scale from 1
to 5 (one meaning ‘totally disagree’ and 5 meaning ‘totally agree’). In SPSS, a mean score
between one and five was calculated. The higher the score, the more agreement there is with
that specific statement. In table 4.1 the translated statements, the mean scores and the standard
deviation are presented. The respondents were divided in 3 groups, according to generation.
As explained in section 3.3, the Moroccans who were born in Morocco are considered first
generation Moroccans (N=59). The second generation consists of respondents who were born
in the Netherlands. They can be distinguished in two groups: those with one parent born in
Morocco (N=7) and those with both parents born in Morocco (N=27). The mean scores and
standard deviations of the whole group of respondents (N=93) are also given.
Item
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
1. Dutch people should accept that
the Netherlands consists of groups
of different cultural backgrounds
2. Ethnic minorities should receive
help in order to maintain their
cultural heritage
4,29
(0,744)
4
(0,816)
4,22
(0,751)
4,25
(0,747)
3,61
(0,616)
3,29
(0,756)
3,63
(0,688)
3,59
(0,647)
3. It is best for the Netherlands if
all people forget their cultural
heritage as soon as possible.
2,34
(1,124)
2,57
(0,976)
2,04
(1,018)
2,27
(1,085)
4. A multicultural society is better
able to solve problems than a
monocultural society.
5. The harmony of the Netherlands
is weakened by minority groups
who hold on to their original
cultural values.
6. If minority groups want to
maintain their own culture, they
should not do this in public.
3,25
(0,843)
3
(0,816)
3,26
(0,984)
3,24
(0,877)
2,07
(0,944)
2,14
(1,069)
2,33
(1,209)
2,15
(1,032)
1,71
(0,767)
1,86
(0,690)
1,93
(0,958)
1,78
(0,819))
34
Item
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
7. A country in which several
cultural groups reside, has more
problems with creating unity than
countries in which only 1 or 2
cultural groups reside.
2,52
(1,096)
2,71
(1,380)
2,70
(1,463)
2,59
(1,224
8. Dutch people should try harder to
learn about the cultures of the
minority groups that live in the
Netherlands.
3,69
(1,038)
3
(0,816)
3,81
(1,039)
3,68
(1,034)
9. Allochthonous parents should
encourage their children to
maintain the culture and traditions
of the native country.
3,88
(0,892)
3,71
(0,756)
3,93
(0,874)
3,88
(0,870)
10. People who come to live in the
Netherlands, should adapt their
behavior to the behavior of the
Dutch people.
2,80
(1,156)
3,14
(0,690)
2,89
(1,281)
2,85
(1,160)
Table 4.1: The items of section 2 with their mean score and standard deviation, according to generation. Answers range from 1 to 5, one
meaning ‘totally disagree’ and five meaning ‘totally agree’. The items were originally in Dutch. Between brackets are the standard
deviations.
This table shows that the respondents mostly agree with the statement that Dutch people
should accept that the Netherlands is a multicultural society. The group with one parent born
in Morocco is slightly more careful in their answer than the other groups. The respondents
also agree with the statement that says that ethnic minorities should receive help to maintain
their cultural heritage. Again, the score of the group with one parent born in Morocco is
slightly lower. The third item, “It is best for the Netherlands if all people forget their cultural
heritage as soon as possible”, was mostly disagreed with. Especially by the group with both
parents born in Morocco. In general, the respondents do not have a strong opinion about item
4, but they disagree with items 5 and 6, which state that minority groups should not show
their own culture in public areas and that a multicultural society has more problems with
creating unity than a more monocultural society. Especially the first generation Moroccans
disagree with this last statement.
With a mean score of 3,68 and 3,88, it can be said that most respondents agree slightly with
the statements that Dutch people should try harder to learn about the cultures of minority
groups and that allochthonous parents should encourage their children to maintain their native
culture and traditions. Only the second generation respondents with one parent born in
Morocco stand more neutral towards the first mentioned item. The last statement, “People
who come to live in the Netherlands should adapt their behavior to the behavior of the Dutch
35
people” is somewhat disagreed with by Moroccans born in Morocco and by Moroccans with
two parents born in Morocco. The group with one parent born in Morocco answers more
neutral.
4.2
Section 3: Dutch and Moroccan identity
The first question of this section is crucial. The respondents are asked to which group they
feel they belong to: to the Moroccan group, to the Dutch group, to both groups just as much,
or to another group. It is quite interesting to see that 46,2% of the respondents say that they
belong to the Moroccan group, and 45,3% says that they belong to both groups just as much.
Only 1% feels belongingness with the Dutch group and 7,5% feels they belong to another
group. When a division is made between first and second generation Moroccans, the
following picture emerges:
To which
group do
you feel that
you belong?
First
generation
Moroccans
(born in
Morocco)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in the
Netherlands)
Mean of
first and
second
generation
Moroccans
One parent
born in
Morocco
Both parents
born in
Morocco
50,8%
14,3%
40,7%
46,2%
Dutch group
-
-
3,7%
1%
Both groups
equally
Another
group
42,4%
85,7%
44,4%
45,3%
6,8%
-
11,1%
7,5%
Total
N=59
N=7
N=27
N=93
Moroccan
group
Table 4.2: Group belongingness according to generation. The item was originally in Dutch.
This table clearly shows that most of the first generation Moroccans feel that they belong to
the Moroccan group. None of them feels they belong to the Dutch group. Of the second
generation Moroccans with one parent born in Morocco the vast majority (85,7%) feel they
belong to both groups just as much. Again, none of them feels they belong to the Dutch
group. Of those with both parents born in Morocco 44,4% feels they belong to both groups
equally and almost the same percentage feels they belong to the Moroccan group (40,7%). Of
the second generation respondents with both parents born in Morocco, three respondents say
they feel they belong to another group. When asked to specify, all three say they do not
belong to any group. They see themselves as individuals.
36
The second question of this section is used to determine to what extent the respondents feel
Moroccan and to what extent they feel Dutch. The results per generation are shown in the next
table.
Item
First
generation
Moroccans
(born in
Morocco)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in the
Netherlands)
One parent
born in
Morocco
Both parents
born in
Morocco
Total of
first and
second
generation
Moroccans
I feel
Moroccan
4,19
(0,798)
4,14
(0,378)
4,37
(0,688)
4,24
(0,743)
I feel Dutch
2,88
(1,068)
3,17
(0,408)
3,33
(1,074)
3,03
(1,053)
Table 4.3: Scores on item 2 and 3 of section 3: feeling Moroccan and Dutch according to generation. Between brackets are the standard
deviations. The items were originally in Dutch. Answer range from 1 to 5, one meaning ‘totally disagree’ and five meaning ‘totally agree’.
As is shown in table 4.3, the respondents generally agree with the item “I feel Moroccan” and
are generally more neutral towards the item “I feel Dutch”. This can mean that they feel more
Moroccan than Dutch. There are no significant differences between the three generational
groups, but it is interesting to see that the second generation Moroccans with one parent born
in Morocco feel less Moroccan than the other groups. Besides that, this table clearly shows
that the first generation Moroccans say that they feel less Dutch than the second generation
Moroccans, and that the second generation respondents with two parents born in Morocco feel
more Dutch than the other two groups.
4.3
Section 3: factors that determine identity
In items 4 and 5 of the third section questions are asked concerning the factors that determine
the Moroccan and Dutch identity respectively. The respondents are asked to evaluate
statements about language, religion, physical appearance and so on. The results can be found
in tables 4.4 (I feel Moroccan because..) and 4.5 (I feel Dutch because..).
37
I feel Moroccan because..
1. I speak Arabic/Berber
2. I am Muslim
3. I have a lot of knowledge about
my religion
4. I live according to Moroccan
norms and values
5. My parents are Moroccan
6. I was raised according to
Moroccan tradition
7. I look Moroccan
8. I feel more comfortable with
Moroccans
9. Other people consider me as
Moroccan
10. The Dutch culture does not
appeal to me
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
3,61
(1,313)
3,79
(1,246)
3,68
(1,306)
3,88
(1,100)
4,25
(1,027)
4,20
(0,924)
3,98
(1,075)
3,71
(1,084)
3,97
(1,231)
2,08
(1,087)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
3,57
(1,134)
3
(1,414)
3,14
(1,345)
4,14
(1,215)
4,57
(0,787)
4,43
(0,976)
4,43
(0,787)
4
(1,155)
4,29
(0,756)
2
(0,816)
3,44
(1,311)
3,68
(1,215)
3,33
(1,330)
3,96
(1,160)
4,56
(0,892)
4,19
(1,075)
3,65
(1,441)
2,92
(1,230)
3,65
(1,355)
1,54
(0,761)
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
3,56
(1,289)
3,69
(1,254)
3,54
(1,315)
3,92
(1,115)
4,37
(0,976)
4,22
(0,965)
3,92
(1,179)
3,51
(1,181)
3,90
(1,241)
1,92
(1,008)
Table 4.4: Scores on item 4 of section 3: the factors that determine the extent of ‘feeling Moroccan’, according to generation. Between
brackets are the standard deviations. The items were originally in Dutch. Answer range from 1 to 5, one meaning ‘totally disagree’ and five
meaning ‘totally agree’.
As is shown in table 4.4, factors such as language, religion, norms and values, tradition and
physical appearance often determine the extent to which a person feels Moroccan. The
differences between generations are not significant. What stands out, is that second generation
respondents with one parent born in Morocco see their religion as a less important identity
marker. Interesting is that the second generation Moroccans with both parents born in
Morocco say they feel less comfortable with Moroccans than the two other groups. Most of
the respondents disagree with the statement that their Moroccan identity is based on a lack of
appeal to the Dutch culture. The second generation Moroccans with both parents born in the
Netherlands disagrees stronger with this statement than the other two groups.
38
I feel Dutch because..
1. I speak Dutch
2. I am aware of Dutch norms and
values and traditions
3. I live according to Dutch norms,
values and traditions
4. I was raised as a Dutch person
5. I look Dutch
6. I feel more comfortable with
Dutch people
7. Other people consider me as
Dutch
8. The Moroccans in the
Netherlands and their culture do
not appeal to me
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
3,34
(1,149)
3,09
(1,149)
2,23
(1,027)
1,84
(0,826)
1,23
(0,539)
2,21
(1,039)
1,63
(0,906)
1,36
(0,749)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
3,43
(0,976)
3,29
(0,951)
2,86
(0,900)
2
(0,577)
1,57
(0,787)
3
(1,000)
1,86
(0,690)
1
(0,000)
3,62
(1,299)
3,38
(1,299)
2,38
(1,235)
2
(1,058)
1,42
(0,758)
2,27
(1,151)
1,88
(1,107)
1,31
(0,679)
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
3,43
(1,176)
3,19
(1,176)
2,33
(1,085)
1,90
(0,880)
1,31
(0,632)
2,29
(1,079)
1,72
(0,953)
1,31
(0,731)
Table 4.5: Scores on item 5 of section 3: the factors that determine the extent of ‘feeling Dutch’, according to generation. Between brackets
are the standard deviations. The items were originally in Dutch. Answer range from 1 to 5, one meaning ‘totally disagree’ and five meaning
‘totally agree’.
Table 4.5 shows the factors that determine the extent to which the respondents feel Dutch. All
groups agree slightly with the statement that the Dutch language and the Dutch norms and
values are determining factors, but they disagree with the statement that they feel Dutch
because they live according to Dutch norms and values. Especially the first generation
Moroccans disagree with the statements that they feel Dutch because they were raised as a
Dutch person and because they look Dutch. All groups disagree with the statements on having
a Dutch physical appearance and other people considering them Dutch being reasons for
feeling Dutch. All groups, and especially the second generation Moroccans with one parent
born in Morocco, disagree completely with the statement that they feel Dutch because the
Moroccans in the Netherlands and their culture do not appeal to them.
4.4
Moroccan identity versus Dutch identity
In table 4.6, the results of the statements of question 6 in section 3 of the questionnaire are
presented. As before, the statements are translated into English and the average score on a
39
five-point Likert scale and the standard deviation are given. The scores are between one and
five, one meaning ‘totally disagree’ and five meaning ‘totally agree’.
Item
1. I am happy to be Moroccan
2. I feel a bond with other
Moroccans
3. The fact that I am Moroccan says
nothing about the person that I am
4. I dislike that I am Moroccan
5. When people talk about
Moroccans I feel they talk about me
6. Being Moroccan is an important
part of my cultural identity
7. I am proud to be Moroccan
8. When I talk about Moroccans, I
say: “we, Moroccans..”
9. In many ways I am the same as
other Moroccans
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
4
(0,621)
3,90
(0,872)
3,43
(1,339)
4,14
(0,378)
3,86
(0,960)
3
(0,816)
4,15
(0,675)
4
(0,980)
3,50
(1,581)
4,05
(0,621)
3,92
(0,885)
3,42
(1,375)
1,84
(1,136)
3,67
(0,925)
4,21
(0,642)
3,95
(0,867)
3,43
(1,094)
3,34
(1,018)
1,71
(0,951)
3,86
(0,378)
4,14
(0,378)
3,86
(0,378)
3,57
(0,787)
3,43
(0,787)
1,46
(0,706)
3,73
(1,151)
4,08
(0,891)
4,12
(0,952)
3,12
(1,306)
3,04
(1,248)
1,73
(1,023)
3,70
(0,960)
4,16
(0,703)
3,99
(8,63)
3,35
(1,139)
3,26
(1,073)
Table 4.6: Scores on item 6 (statements 1-9) of section 3 on Moroccan identity. The items were originally in Dutch. Answer range from 1 to
5, one meaning ‘totally disagree’ and five meaning ‘totally agree’. Between brackets are the standard deviations.
This table shows that most respondents are quite happy to be Moroccan. None of the
respondents disagreed with this statement. The same goes for the second statement about
feeling a bond with other Moroccans. The respondents answered more neutral to the third
statement, none of them totally disagreed or totally agreed. All respondents answer negatively
to statement 4 (“I dislike that I am Moroccan”), the second generation Moroccans with both
parents born in Morocco disagree the most with this statement. All generations agree with the
statements that they feel addressed when people talk about Moroccans and that being
Moroccan is an important part of their cultural identity. In general, all three groups are proud
to be Moroccan. It is interesting to see that the second generation Moroccans with two parents
born in Morocco feel more proud than the other groups. All groups stand quite neutral
towards the statement “in many ways I am the same as other Moroccans”. The group with one
parent born in Morocco did not totally disagree (1) nor totally agree (5) with this statement.
40
Item
1. I am happy to be Dutch
2. I feel a bond with other Dutch
people
3. The fact that I am Dutch says
nothing about the person that I am
4. When people talk about Dutch
people I feel they talk about me
5. Being Dutch is an important part
of my cultural identity
6. I dislike that I am Dutch
7. When I talk about Dutch people,
I say: “We, the Dutch..”
8. In many ways I am the same as
other Dutch people
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
2,56
(0,918)
2,58
(1,083)
2,83
(1,370)
2,71
(0,756)
3,14
(0,900)
2,86
(1,215)
2,77
(1,142)
2,88
(1,177)
3,27
(1,343)
2,64
(0,973)
2,72
(1,103)
2,97
(1,351)
2,40
(1,196)
2,69
(1,103)
1,77
(0,8)
2,08
(1,124)
2,63
(0,958)
2,57
(1,512)
2,29
(1,380)
1,71
(0,756)
2
(1,291)
2,57
(1,134)
2,62
(1,267)
3,08
(1,129)
1,60
(0,764)
2
(1,118)
2,71
(1,122)
2,48
(1,232)
2,77
(1,142)
1,72
(0,781)
2,05
(1,122)
2,65
(1,011)
Table 4.7: Scores on item 6 (statements 10-17) of section 3 on Dutch identity. The items were originally in Dutch. Answer range from 1 to 5,
one meaning ‘totally disagree’ and five meaning ‘totally agree’. Between brackets are the standard deviations.
Table 4.7 shows 8 items on Dutch identity. All statements are more or less disagreed with.
Most of the respondents are not happy to be Dutch and do not feel a bond with other Dutch
people. Only the second generation Moroccans with one parent born in Morocco answer more
neutrally. When it comes to the extent to which being Dutch determines the personality, most
respondents of first and second generation say that the fact that they are Dutch does not say
anything about the person they are. Only the second generation Moroccans with both parents
born in Morocco produce a more neutral score. All respondents do not feel addressed when
people talk about Dutch people and they do not consider being Dutch as an important part of
their identity. None of the respondents dislike being Dutch; the score 4 (“agree”) was only
given by first generation Moroccans and 5 (“totally agree”) was not given by anyone. Most
respondents do not feel that they are the same as other Dutch people.
41
Table 4.8: Scores on item 7 of section 3 in which the respondents are asked if they feel more Moroccan or more Dutch. The item was
originally in Dutch.
This table shows the answers to the question “Do you feel more Moroccan or more Dutch?”.
About 15% of the first generation respondents and 8% of second generation respondents with
both parents born in Morocco, feel only Moroccan. Of the second generation respondents with
one parent born in Morocco, nobody feels solely Moroccan. About 29% of first generation
Moroccans and second generation Moroccans with one parent born in Morocco feel more
Moroccan than Dutch, versus 41% of second generation Moroccans with two Moroccan-born
parents. The majority of respondents feel equally as much Moroccan as Dutch. This is true for
53% of the first generation respondents, for 71% of the second generation Moroccans with
one parent born in Morocco, and for 49% of the second generation Moroccans with both
parents born in Morocco. This graph clearly shows that none of the respondents say they feel
‘more Dutch than Moroccan’ or ‘only Dutch’.
Question 8 of section 3 was: “in which situations do you feel more Moroccan than Dutch?”.
Most respondents chose not to answer this question. Of the ones who did answer, the most
common responds were: “when I am with family” (9 times), “outside the house” (e.g. on the
street, at work, etc) (8 times), “when I am on holiday in Morocco” (6 times) and “during the
Ramadan” (5 times). Question 9 is about the contrary, namely: “in which situations do you
feel more Dutch than Moroccan?”. The most common answers were: “when I am in Morocco
(13 times) and “when I am amongst Dutch people” (7 times, e.g. in school or at work). Six
people said that they never feel more Dutch than Moroccan.
The tenth question of section 3 was used to once more determine the difference between
having a more Moroccan identity or a more Dutch identity and the extent to which the
respondents live accordingly. Table 4.9 shows the results.
42
Item
1. I know a lot about Moroccan
culture
2. I know a lot about Dutch culture
3. I know a lot of the Moroccan
traditions and I live according to
these traditions
4. I know a lot of the Dutch
traditions and I live according to
these traditions
5. I know about Moroccan cultural
norms and values
6. I know about Dutch cultural
norms and values
7. Moroccan values (like the
Moroccan flag and history) mean a
lot to me
8. Dutch values (like the flag and
history) mean a lot to me
9. The Moroccan culture influences
me greatly
10. The Dutch culture influences me
greatly
11. The Moroccan culture has a
positive effect on my life
12. The Dutch culture has a positive
effect on my life
13. I live according to Moroccan
norms and values
14. I live according to Dutch norms
and values
15. I listen to Moroccan music
16. I listen to Dutch music
17. I follow the Moroccan news
18. I follow the Dutch news
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
4,14
(0,687)
3,28
(1,121)
4
(0,577)
3,67
(0,516)
4,08
(0,640)
3,32
(1,215)
4,11
(0,661)
3,31
(1,114)
3,97
(0,748)
3,43
(0,535)
3,88
(0,833)
3,90
(0,765)
2,38
(0,952)
2,67
(0,816)
2,32
(1,069)
2,38
(0,971)
4,09
(0,689)
3,10
(1,195)
3,97
(1,008)
3,50
(0,837)
2,33
(0,516)
2,86
(1,464)
4,12
(0,66)
3,16
(1,313)
4,04
(0,978)
4,06
(0,701)
3,07
(1,204)
3,90
(1,071)
3,02
(1,100)
3,95
(0,804)
2,60
(1,075)
3,97
(0,837)
2,86
(1,146)
3,97
(0,816)
2,91
(1,144)
3,95
(0,736)
3,09
(1,174)
3,21
(1,295)
3,95
(0,963)
2,32
(1,602)
2,86
(1,345)
2,67
(1,366)
3
(0,816)
2,67
(1,366)
3,57
(0,535)
2,33
(1,211)
4,14
(0,900)
2,17
(1,329)
3,29
(0,951)
3,17
(0,983)
3,28
(1,137)
3,96
(0,676)
3,04
(0,978)
4,12
(0,726)
3,16
(1,106)
3,96
(0,790)
2,96
(0,978)
3,92
(0,862)
3
(1,354)
2,52
(1,295)
4,04
(0,978)
3,08
(1,140)
3,87
(0,864)
2,73
(1,074)
3,93
(0,845)
2,93
(1,146)
3,93
(0,790)
2,89
(1,102)
3,96
(0,778)
3
(1,243)
3,02
(1,298)
3,92
(0,980)
43
Item
19. I prefer to eat Moroccan food
20. I prefer to eat Dutch food
21. In my spare time, I take part in
Moroccan cultural activities
22. In my spare time, I take part in
Dutch cultural activities
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
4,36
(0,693)
2,31
(0,995)
3,17
(1,272)
2,41
(1,124)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
3,71
(1,380)
1,83
(0,753)
3,14
(0,690)
1,83
(0,983)
4,48
(0,653)
2,12
(1,054)
2,48
(1,327)
2,20
(1,190)
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
4,34
(0,767)
2,22
(0,997)
2,98
(1,281)
2,31
(1,134)
Table 4.9: Scores on item 10 of section 3 on Moroccan and Dutch identity. The items were originally in Dutch. Answer range from 1 to 5,
one meaning ‘totally disagree’ and five meaning ‘totally agree’. Between brackets are the standard deviations.
According to these results, the respondents say that they know more about Moroccan culture
than about Dutch culture, and that they know more about Moroccan traditions than about
Dutch traditions and live accordingly. Of the three groups, the second generation Moroccans
with one parent born in Morocco disagrees more with the statement “I know about Dutch
cultural norms and values” than the other two groups. Dutch values (such as the flag and
common history) do not mean a lot to the respondents, but Moroccan values do. The first
generation respondents and the second generation Moroccans with both parents born in
Morocco say that the Moroccan culture influences them greatly. The second generation with
one parent born in Morocco does not agree with this statement. In general, the respondents
disagree with the statement that the Dutch culture has a positive effect on their life. All
respondents say they live according to Moroccan norms and values, more than according to
Dutch norms and values. When it comes to music, the news and food, Moroccan music and
food are preferred over Dutch music and food and the Dutch news is preferred over the
Moroccan news. Most of the respondents do not take part in Moroccan or Dutch cultural
activities, but when they do take part, especially the first generation respondents and the
second generation respondents with one parent born in Morocco are more likely to take part in
Moroccan cultural activities than in Dutch ones.
44
4.5
Religious beliefs
Item
1. I am a Muslim
2. I know a lot about Islam
3. I know a lot about Islamic rules
4. I know how I am supposed to
practice my religion
5. I feel a strong connection with
Muslims
6. The Islam means a lot to me
7. When people talk about Muslims,
I feel they talk about me
8. I support a strict application of
Islamic rules
9. When I make decisions in daily
life, I am influenced by Islamic rules
10. Islam should play a role in the
Dutch social life and politics
11. Islamic belief is a personal
matter
12. The Islam is a source of
inspiration in my daily life
13. I live my life without prioritizing
Islamic rules
14. I am a practicing Muslim
15. I fast during Ramadan
16. I celebrate religious festivities
17. I prefer to eat Halal meat
18. I think that religion is a personal
matter
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
One parent
born in
Morocco
4,60
(0,620)
3,91
(1,081)
4,19
(0,963)
4,14
(0,826)
4,19
(0,926)
4,38
(0,895)
4,86
(0,378)
3,43
(1,397)
3,71
(0,756)
4,43
(0,535)
4,57
(0,535)
4,43
(0,535)
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
4,48
(0,770)
3,56
(1,121)
3,64
(1,254)
3,88
(1,013)
4,28
(0,891)
4,16
(1,106)
4,05
(1,248)
2,64
(1,471)
3,49
(1,311)
2,97
(1,544)
4,21
(0,894)
4,21
(0,847)
2,90
(1,483)
4,38
(0,855)
4,90
(0,307)
4,71
(0,726)
4,97
(0,184)
4,41
(0,838)
4,71
(0,488)
1,86
(1,215)
3,86
(0,900)
3
(1,155)
3,86
(1,345)
4,43
(0,535)
2,43
(1,512)
4,43
(0,535)
5
(0,000)
4,86
(0,378)
4,86
(0,378)
4,57
(0,787)
4,20
(1,041)
2,40
(1,528)
3,50
(1,251)
2,52
(1,558)
4,44
(0,583)
4,04
(0,978)
2,64
(1,350)
4,44
(0,961)
4,96
(0,200)
4,64
(0,810)
5
(0,000)
4,48
(0,653)
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
4,59
(0,652)
3,78
(1,120)
4
(1,060)
4,09
(0,870)
4,24
(0,891)
4,32
(0,934)
4,14
(1,157)
2,51
(1,471)
3,52
(1,259)
2,84
(1,521)
4,24
(0,865)
4,18
(0,865)
2,79
(1,442)
4,40
(0,859)
4,92
(0,269)
4,70
(0,726)
4,97
(0,181)
4,44
(0,781)
Table 5: Scores on item 11 of section 4 on Religious identity. The items were originally in Dutch. Answer range from 1 to 5, one meaning
‘totally disagree’ and five meaning ‘totally agree’. Between brackets are the standard deviations.
45
As is shown in table 5, the second generation Moroccans with one parent born in Morocco
agree more with the statement ‘I am Muslim’ than the other two groups, but in general all
respondents agree or fully agree with this statement. None of the respondents disagree or fully
disagree. When it comes to having knowledge of the Islam and Islamic rules (item 2 and 3),
the respondents are a bit more reserved in their answer. The first generation Moroccans agree
most with these statements. The second generation Moroccans with one parent born in
Morocco feel a stronger connection with other Muslims than the two other groups. They also
claim to have the strongest connection with Islam. Most respondents do not agree with a strict
appliance of Islamic rules. It is especially the second generation group with one parent born in
Morocco which disagrees most with the application of strict Islamic rules. All groups consider
Islamic religion and religion in general a personal matter. Almost all respondents say that they
are practicing Muslims, who fast during Ramadan, celebrate religious festivities and prefer to
eat Halal meat.
4.6
Social network
Item
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
4,22
(0,750)
2,91
(1,144)
2,71
(1,364)
4,14
(0,690)
2,34
(1,134)
2,29
(1,254)
4,12
(0,781)
2,92
(1,320)
2,44
(1,356)
4,19
(0,748)
2,88
(1,188)
2,60
(1,347)
4. In my spare time I visit cafés,
teahouses or clubs to meet Dutch
1,78
(1,060)
1,57
(0,976)
1,76
(1,091)
1,76
(1,053)
5. I am a member of a Moroccan
club/organization
2,78
(1,451)
1,79
(1,056)
3,14
(1,069)
2,14
(1,215)
2,12
(1,481)
1,64
(1,036)
2,62
(1,458)
1,78
(1,058)
2,81
(1,162)
3,72
(0,914)
2
(1,000)
3,86
(0,378)
3,04
(1,172)
3,32
(1,032)
2,81
(1,170)
3,62
(0,931)
1. I have a lot of Moroccan friends
2. I have a lot of Dutch friends
3. In my spare time I visit cafés,
teahouses or clubs to meet
Moroccans
6. I am a member of a Dutch
club/organization
7. A lot of Moroccans live in the
neighborhood where I live
8. I feel most comfortable with
Moroccans
46
Item
9. I feel most comfortable with
Dutch people
10. I know Dutch people well
11. I know Moroccans well
12. I love the way Moroccans
interact with each other
13. I love the way Dutch people
interact with each other
14. I have a strong bond with my
family
15. I have a strong bond with my
Moroccan friends
16. I have a strong bond with my
Dutch friends
17. I have a lot of Moroccan friends
whom I can call real friends
18. I have a lot of Dutch friends
whom I can call real friends
19. I discuss personal matters with
my Moroccan friends
20. I discuss personal matters with
my Dutch friends
21. When I need help with every
day things, I ask help from my
Moroccan friends
22. When I need help with every
day things, I ask help from my
Dutch friends
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
2,24
(1,097)
3,16
(1,309)
3,90
(1,103)
3,79
(0,969)
2,84
(1,005)
4,72
(0,488)
3,97
(0,837)
2,69
(1,340)
3,59
(1,109)
2,71
(0,756)
3,43
(1,134)
3,43
(1,134)
2,71
(0,951)
2,43
(0,976)
4,57
(0,535)
4
(0,577)
2,57
(1,272)
4
(0,577)
2,48
(1,159)
3,40
(1,323)
4,08
(0,909)
3,88
(0,833)
2,76
(0,879)
4,68
(0,557)
3,60
(0,957)
2,92
(1,187)
3,16
(1,028)
2,34
(1,093)
3,24
(1,292)
3,91
(1,056)
3,81
(0,923)
2,79
(0,966)
4,70
(0,507)
3,87
(0,864)
2,74
(1,286)
3,50
(1,073)
2,74
(1,332)
3,91
(0,996)
2,57
(1,326)
4,10
(0,872)
2,57
(1,272)
3,43
(0,976)
2,29
(0,756)
4
(0,577)
2,44
(1,083)
3,56
(1,325)
2,20
(1,258)
3,40
(1,323)
2,64
(1,257)
3,78
(1,099)
2,44
(1,273)
3,90
(1,039)
2,48
(1,173)
2,57
(0,787)
2,16
(1,106)
2,40
(1,130)
Table 5.1: Scores on item 12 of section 5 on social networks. The items were originally in Dutch. Answer range from 1 to 5, one meaning
‘totally disagree’ and five meaning ‘totally agree’. Between brackets are the standard deviations.
Table 5.1 shows the results of the first matrix of section 5. The 22 statements are about social
networks, and they are used to determine the respondents’ social behavior and social
preferences. In general, the respondents say that they have a lot of Moroccan friends and that
they do not have a lot of Dutch friends. They do not visit cafés, teahouses or clubs to meet
Moroccan or Dutch people, even though the score on ‘meeting Moroccans’ is slightly higher.
Even though they score neutral, it is interesting to see that only the second generation
Moroccans with one parent born in Morocco say that they are a member of a Moroccan club
47
or organization. Their score on being a member of Dutch organizations is also slightly higher,
even though it is still negative. The second generation Moroccans with one parent born in the
Netherlands apparently feel more comfortable with Dutch people and know Dutch people
better than the other two groups. They also do not like the way Moroccans interact with each
other. The second generation Moroccans with both parents born in Morocco are most
confident in their knowledge of Moroccans. The respondents say they have a stronger bond
with Moroccan friends than with Dutch friends. They often discuss personal matters with
Moroccan friends instead of with Dutch friends. When they need help, they are more likely to
ask their Moroccan friends.
“In general: do you have more contact with Moroccans or with Dutch people?” is the last
question of this matrix. In the following chart the results are shown, according to generation.
Table 5.2: Scores of the last question of item 12 of section 5 on social networks. The items were originally in Dutch. The percentage of
answers are shown, according to generation.
As is shown in table 5.2, most first generation Moroccans (41%) say they have more contact
with Moroccans. About one third of them say they have equal contact with Moroccans and
Dutch people, and about 23% say they have more contact with Dutch people. Less than 5% of
the first generation respondents say they only have contact with Moroccans. Of the second
generation Moroccans with one parent born in Morocco, most (43%) have contact with both
Moroccans and Dutch equally. About 28% of them have more contact with Moroccans and
the same percentage has more contact with Dutch people. The second generation Moroccans
with both parents born in Morocco show a different picture. They claim to have more contact
with Moroccans than with Dutch people (37%). About one fourth of them say they have
contact with both groups equally and another one fourth of them say they have more contact
with Dutch people. Less than 5% of them say they only have contact with Moroccans. None
of the respondents only have contact with Dutch people.
48
Question 13 of the questionnaire is a ranking question, in which the respondents are asked to
rank the time they spend with different social groups. For more information on this question
and the scoring, please see section 3.2. The following chart shows that most time is spent with
family members. Moroccan friends and Dutch friends are in second and third place. The least
time is spent with Moroccan acquaintances and Dutch acquaintances.
Table 5.2: Scores of the ranking question (item 13) of section 5 on social networks. The items were originally in Dutch. The total
amount of points are shown. For more information on the scoring, see the method section.
The next matrix of section 5 is about Moroccan identity and group identity values.
Item
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
1. Moroccans in the Netherlands
who stop speaking Arabic/Berber
loose their Moroccan identity
3,38
(1,254)
3,14
(1,464)
3,56
(1,294)
3,41
(1,271)
2. Moroccans in the Netherlands
who stop practicing Islam loose
their Moroccan identity
3,57
(0,993)
3,43
(1,134)
3,36
(1,319)
3,50
(1,094)
49
Item
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
3,84
(0,768)
4
(0,000)
4,12
(0,881)
3,93
(0,776)
3,34
(1,236)
3,67
(1,114)
2,88
(1,201)
2,14
(1,069)
2,57
(1,134)
3
(1,000)
3,40
(1,384)
3,44
(1,227)
2,64
(1,036)
3,27
(1,296)
3,52
(1,173)
2,82
(1,137)
7. Moroccan organizations
positively contribute to the
Moroccan community
3,25
(0,939)
3
(1,000)
3,17
(0,868)
3,21
(0,917)
8. The Moroccans in the
Netherlands always stick together
3,55
(1,062)
2,20
(1,197)
3,57
(0,976)
1,71
(0,756)
3,28
(0,980)
1,83
(0,917)
3,48
(1,030)
2,06
(1,103)
3,76
(1,113)
2,47
(1,096)
3,81
(0,982)
3,86
(0,900)
2,43
(0,787)
3,86
(0,378)
4,04
(0,889)
2,48
(1,159)
3,84
(0,898)
3,84
(1,038)
2,47
(1,083)
3,82
(0,919)
3,36
(0,950)
2,40
(1,123)
2,52
(1,203)
4
(0,816)
2
(0,816)
1,71
(0,756)
3,32
(0,802)
2,36
(0,995)
2,32
(1,145)
3,40
(0,909)
2,36
(1,063)
2,40
(1,169)
2,64
(1,294)
1,57
(0,787)
2,72
(1,100)
2,58
(1,236)
3,69
(0,777)
3,57
(0,787)
3,72
(0,843)
3,69
(0,788)
3. Moroccans in the Netherlands
who loose their Moroccan values
and norms, loose their Moroccan
identity
4. Moroccans in the Netherlands
can come across as one group
5. Moroccans in the Netherlands
have a strong connection as a group
6. Moroccans in the Netherlands
have enough organizations and
foundations to promote their
interests
9. The Moroccan community is well
represented in Dutch politics
10. Dutch people usually think
negative about Moroccans
11. Dutch people appreciate the
Moroccan language and culture
12. Dutch people think negative
about Moroccan language and
culture
13. Dutch people discriminate
Moroccans
14. There are enough places where
Moroccan languages are taught
15. In my neighborhood there are
enough Moroccan shops,
organizations, teahouses, etc.
16. The Moroccan community in the
Netherlands has enough Moroccan
media (news papers, television, etc.)
17. When a Moroccan has a
problem, he/she knows that the
Moroccan community can help
50
Item
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
18. Within 20 to 30 years the
Moroccans in the Netherlands will
be organized better and there will
be more solidarity within the
Moroccan community
2,95
(1,354)
3,29
(1,380)
2,79
(1,250)
2,93
(1,319)
19. Within 20 to 30 years the
Moroccans in the Netherlands will
no longer form a community and a
collective group identity will no
longer exist
2,89
(1,155)
2,29
(0,756)
2,67
(1,274)
2,78
(1,166)
Table 5.3: Scores of question 14 of section 5 The items were originally in Dutch. Answers range from 1 to 5, one meaning ‘totally disagree’
and five meaning ‘totally agree’. Between brackets are the standard deviations.
With their answers to statement one to three of this matrix, the respondents show that they
believe that language, religion and Moroccan values and norms are an important part of
Moroccan identity. It is interesting to see that all second generation respondents with one
parent born in Morocco unanimously agree with the statement that Moroccans in the
Netherlands who loose their Moroccan values and norms, loose their Moroccan identity.
Second generation Moroccans with one parent born in Morocco disagree with the statements
that Moroccans can come across as one group and that Moroccans have a strong connection as
a group. The other groups either agree or are more neutral in their answer. The first generation
Moroccans and the second generation Moroccans with both parents born in the Netherlands
slightly disagree with the statements that there are enough organizations in the Netherlands to
promote the interests of Moroccans, but they are a bit more positive about the positive
contribution of the existing organizations to the Moroccan community. All respondents
slightly agree that the Moroccans in the Netherlands generally stick together and disagree that
the Moroccan community is well represented in Dutch politics.
It is shocking to see that all respondents (especially second generation Moroccans with both
parents born in Morocco) feel that Dutch people usually think negative about Moroccans, that
Dutch people do not appreciate Moroccan language and culture and that Dutch people
discriminate Moroccans. The low standard deviations show a high agreement on these topics.
When it comes to discrimination, none of the first generation Moroccans and second
generation Moroccans with two parents born in Morocco fully disagree on being
discriminated by Dutch people. All respondents feel that there are not enough places where
Moroccan languages are taught, but they think that there are not enough Moroccan media and
that there are not a lot Moroccan stores and organizations in their neighborhood. When it
51
comes to the future prospects, all respondents answer neutrally. This shows that they are not
sure what will happen with their group identity in the next 20 to 30 years.
4.7
Section 6: foreigners in the Netherlands
Item
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
4,29
(0,731)
2,27
(1,053)
4,29
(0,488)
1,86
(0,690)
4,17
(0,868)
2,25
(0,989)
4,25
(0,750)
2,23
(1,008)
3. Foreigners in the Netherlands
may speak in their own language
(Arabic or Berber)
4,16
(0,781)
4,14
(0,378)
4,29
(0,751)
4,20
(0,745)
4. Foreigners in the Netherlands
may live according to the norms
and values of their own culture
3,84
(0,848)
4,14
(0,690)
4,08
(0,717)
3,93
(0,804)
5. Foreigners in the Netherlands
may appreciate the norms and
values of their own culture
4,27
(0,674)
4,29
(0,488)
4,33
(0,761)
4,29
(0,680)
6. Foreigners in the Netherlands are
supposed to live according to the
norms and values of the Dutch
culture
2,41
(1,087)
2
(0,577)
2,58
(0,929)
2,43
(1,085)
1. Foreigners in the Netherlands
should speak Dutch
2. Foreigners in the Netherlands
should prioritize the Dutch norms
and values over norms and values of
other cultures
Table 5.4: Scores on question 15 of section 6. The items were originally in Dutch. Answers range from 1 to 5, one meaning ‘totally disagree’
and five meaning ‘totally agree’. Between brackets are the standard deviations.
As this table shows, the majority of respondents agree that foreigners in the Netherlands
should speak Dutch, but disagree that they should prioritize the Dutch norms and values over
norms and values of other cultures. The majority of respondents also agree that foreigners in
the Netherlands may speak their own language and that they may live according to and
appreciate the norms and values of their own culture. None of the respondents disagrees with
these statements. All respondents, and especially the second generation Moroccans with one
parent born in the Netherlands, disagree with the statement that foreigners in the Netherlands
are supposed to live according to the norms and values of the Dutch culture.
52
In public, at work and school
Item
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
1. Foreigners in the Netherlands
should always speak Dutch in
public, at work and in school
2,91
(1,204)
2,86
(0,900)
2,56
(1,158)
2,81
(1,170)
2. Foreigners in the Netherlands
may always speak their own
language in public, at work and in
school
3,48
(0,995)
3,43
(0,787)
3,76
(1,128)
3,56
(1,018)
3. Foreigners in the Netherlands
should respect the Dutch norms and
values in public, at work and in
school
4,02
(0,834)
4,14
(0,378)
4,30
(0,822)
4,10
(0,807)
4. Foreigners may behave according
to their own (non-Dutch) values and
norms in public, at work and in
school
3,72
(0,951)
3,86
(0,690)
3,84
(1,106)
3,77
(0,972)
5. Foreigners in the Netherlands
should behave according to the
Dutch norms and values in public,
at work and in school
3,03
(1,042)
2,43
(0,787)
2,44
(0,961)
2,82
(1,034)
Table 5.3: Scores of question 15 of section 6, on situations in the public domain. The items were originally in Dutch. Answers range from 1
to 5, one meaning ‘totally disagree’ and five meaning ‘totally agree’. Between brackets are the standard deviations.
Table 5.3 shows that the majority of respondents slightly disagree that they should always
speak Dutch in the public domain. They agree that foreigners in the Netherlands may always
speak their own language in public, at work and in school. The second generation Moroccans
with both parents born in the Netherlands agree slightly more with this statement than the
other two groups. The majority of respondents agree that foreigners in the Netherlands should
respect the Dutch norms and values, but at the same time they say that foreigners may behave
according to their own (non-Dutch) values and norms. They do not have to behave according
to the Dutch norms and values.
53
At home
Item
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
1. Foreigners in the Netherlands
may speak their own language at
home
4,60
(0,620)
4,86
(0,378)
4,76
(0,597)
4,67
(0,600)
2. Foreigners in the Netherlands
should respect the Dutch norms and
values at home
2,86
(1,277)
2,57
(1,134)
3,16
(1,068)
2,92
(1,211)
3. Foreigners in the Netherlands
may behave according to their own
(non-Dutch) norms and values at
home
4. Foreigners in the Netherlands
should speak Dutch at home
4,33
(0,825)
4,14
(0,690)
4,52
(0,770)
4,37
(0,800)
1,72
(1,013)
1,71
(0,756)
1,28
(0,542)
1,60
(0,901)
Table 5.4: Scores of question 15 of section 6, on situations in the private domain. The items were originally in Dutch. Answers range from 1
to 5, one meaning ‘totally disagree’ and five meaning ‘totally agree’. Between brackets are the standard deviations.
This table shows that all respondents fully agree with the statement that foreigners in the
Netherlands may speak their own language in their private domain. They are quite neutral
towards respecting the Dutch norms and values at home, but agree that foreigners may behave
according to their own norms and values at home. The second generation Moroccans with one
parent born in Morocco agree slightly less with this statement. All groups disagree with the
statement that foreigners in the Netherlands should speak Dutch at home.
4.8
Section 7: language use
Which language do you speak
with..?
1. Your father
2. Your mother
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
4,21
(0,913)
4,16
(0,996)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
4,43
(1,134)
4,29
(1,113)
3,56
(1,417)
3,67
(1,274)
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
4,04
(1,121)
4,03
(1,098)
54
Which language do you speak
with..?
3. Your siblings
4. Moroccan friends
5. Moroccan neighbors
6. Moroccan shop owners
7. People in the tea house
8. People in the mosque
9. Moroccans on the phone
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
3,26
(1,371)
3,28
(1,264)
3,76
(0,999)
3,41
(1,170)
3,87
(1,088)
4,14
(1,004)
3,25
(0,927)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
3,14
(1,773)
2,86
(1,574)
4
(0,894)
3,43
(1,272)
4,25
(0,957)
4,20
(0,837)
3,29
(1,254)
2,56
(1,356)
2,91
(1,203)
3,25
(1,260)
3,25
(1,294)
3,09
(1,446)
4,14
(0,864)
2,92
(0,997)
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
3,06
(1,417)
3,15
(1,272)
3,64
(1,089)
3,37
(1,200)
3,72
(1,205)
4,14
(0,943)
3,16
(0,975)
Table 5.5: Scores of question 16 of section 7, on language use patterns. The items were originally in Dutch. One means ‘I always speak
Dutch’ and five means ‘I always speak Arabic/Berber’. Three means ‘I speak both languages just as much’. Between brackets are the
standard deviations.
Table 5.5 shows the language use patterns within social groups. It is clear that most first
generation Moroccans say they always or usually speak Arabic or Berber with their father and
mother. The same goes for the second generation with one parent born in Morocco. The
second generation with both parents born in Morocco show a somewhat lower score. None of
the respondents say they always speak Dutch to their parents. When it comes to language use
to siblings, in average both language are spoken equally as much. The second generation with
both parents born in Morocco shows a slight tendency towards Dutch. To Moroccan friends
both language are spoken equally as much, while to Moroccan neighbors and shop owners
mostly Arabic or Berber is spoken. The same goes for the people in the tea house. It is
interesting to see that the respondents of second generation with both parents born in Morocco
show slightly lower scores, indicating that they speak both languages just as much. As could
be predicted, Arabic or Berber is mostly used in the mosque. With co-ethnics on the phone,
both languages are spoken equally.
55
The following table shows passive language use patterns; in which language others speak to
the respondent. Again, the answers range from ‘Always Dutch’ (1) to ‘Always
Arabic/Berber’ (5).
When the following people
speak to you, which language
do they use?
1. Your father?
2. Your mother?
3. Your siblings?
4. Moroccan friends?
5. Your other relatives?
6. Your Moroccan neighbors?
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
4,21
(0,744)
4,14
(0,888)
2,91
(1,232)
2,79
(1,056)
3,72
(0,790)
3,47
(0,777)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
4
(1,000)
4,43
(0,535)
2,86
(1,464)
2,29
(0,756)
3,57
(0,787)
3,43
(0,976)
3,64
(1,036)
3,92
(0,759)
2,48
(1,229)
2,48
(1,259)
3,52
(1,005)
3,44
(0,768)
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
4,03
(0,880)
4,10
(0,835)
2,79
(1,250)
2,67
(1,071)
3,66
(0,850)
3,46
(0,781)
Table 5.6: Results of question 16 of section 7, on passive language use patterns. The items were originally in Dutch. One means ‘Always
Dutch’, five means ‘Always Arabic/Berber’. Between brackets are the standard deviations.
Most respondents say that when their father and mother talk to them, this is usually in Arabic
or Berber. This goes for all generations. Almost none of the parents always speak Dutch.
Siblings of the first generation Moroccans show no clear preference for either of the
languages, while siblings of the second generation Moroccans with both parents born in
Morocco show a light tendency towards speaking Dutch. Friends usually speak Dutch or both
languages equally. Of the first generation and second generation with one parent born in
Morocco, about one third of the friends usually speak Arabic or Berber. Other relatives and
Moroccan neighbors usually speak Arabic or Berber. About one third of the Moroccan
neighbors of second generation respondents with one parent born in Morocco usually speak
Dutch. None of the Moroccan neighbors always speak Dutch.
56
Table 5.7 shows the language that are mostly used during activities.
Which language do you
normally use when you …?
1. Think
2. Dream
3. Calculate and count
4. Read books
5. Read the news paper
6. Watch TV
7. Listen to the radio
8. Write
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
3,18
(1,029)
3,14
(1,017)
2,69
(1,127)
2,22
(1,243)
2,12
(1,044)
2,60
(1,042)
2,46
(1,196)
2,28
(1,082)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
3,14
(1,215)
3
(1,000)
2,57
(1,272)
2,43
(1,397)
2,57
(1,272)
2,57
(1,272)
3
(1,000)
2,71
(1,113)
2,68
(1,145)
2,60
(1,041)
2,24
(1,165)
1,88
(1,092)
1,88
(0,927)
2,52
(0,963)
2,24
(1,012)
2
(0,978)
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
3,03
(1,088)
2,98
(1,038)
2,56
(1,153)
2,14
(1,214)
2,09
(1,035)
2,58
(1,027)
2,44
(1,138)
2,24
(1,061)
Table 5.7: Scores of question 16 of section 7, on language use patterns during activities. The items were originally in Dutch. One means
‘always Dutch’, five means ‘always Arabic/Berber’. Between brackets are the standard deviations.
This table shows that most first generation and second generation respondents think in both
languages equally. The second generation respondents show a slight tendency towards
thinking in Dutch. The first generation respondents and the second generation respondents
with one parent born in Morocco say they dream both in Dutch and Arabic / Berber equally as
much. The second generation respondents with both parents born in Morocco usually dream
in Dutch. Strangely enough all respondents of both generations say they usually count and
calculate in Dutch. Books and news papers are usually read in Dutch by all generations, and
most by the second generation Moroccans with both parents born in Morocco. TV is watched
in Dutch or in both languages equally. The same goes for listening to the radio. The first
generation respondents and second generation respondents with both parents born in Morocco
often write in Dutch, while the second generation with one parent born in Morocco shows a
slight tendency towards writing in both languages equally.
57
Which language do you prefer First generation
when you are..?
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
1. Tired
2. Tense
3. Angry
4. In a hurry
5. In a fight
6. In a good mood
7. Confused
3,43
(1,156)
3,47
(1,047)
3,78
(0,937)
2,93
(1,090)
3,26
(0,947)
3,12
(1,027)
3,28
(1,056)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
3,29
(1,113)
3
(1,155)
3,57
(0,787)
2,86
(1,069)
3,29
(1,113)
3
(0,816)
3
(0,577)
2,92
(1,187)
2,96
(1,207)
3,60
(1,000)
2,76
(1,052)
2,84
(1,068)
2,80
(0,957)
2,69
(1,158)
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
3,28
(1,171)
3,29
(1,114)
3,71
(0,939)
2,88
(1,069)
3,14
(1,001)
3,02
(0,994)
3,09
(1,082)
Table 5.8: Scores of question 16 of section 7, on language use patterns in emotional situations. The items were originally in Dutch. One
means ‘always Dutch’ and five means ‘always Arabic/Berber’. Between brackets are the standard deviations.
Table 5.8 shows that most first generation and second generation respondents with one parent
born in Morocco prefer to speak Arabic or Berber when they are tired. Of the second
generation respondents with both parents born in Morocco, about one third prefers to speak
Arabic or Berber when they are tired, and another one third prefers to speak Dutch. When
feeling tense and angry, the majority of first generation respondents prefer to speak Arabic or
Berber. Second generation respondents show no clear preference for either of the languages.
When in a hurry, all generations show a slight preference for Dutch. In a fight a slight
tendency towards Arabic and Berber can be observed for first generation and second
generation respondents with one parent born in Morocco. When the respondents are in a good
mood, they do not have a clear preference for any language. Confusion makes the first
generation Moroccans prefer Arabic or Berber, while it makes the second generation with one
parent born in Morocco prefer both languages equally. The second generation respondents
with both parents born in Morocco show a slight preference for Dutch.
The following table shows the language preference when talking about certain subjects. It
shows that first generation respondents do not have a preference to speak about daily things in
either language. Second generation respondents with one parent born in Morocco prefer to
speak Dutch and those with both parents born in Morocco also do not show a clear preference
for either of the languages. When it comes to school or work affairs, the first generation
respondents and the second generation respondents with one parent born in Morocco prefer to
58
speak in both languages equally or in Dutch. The second generation respondents with two
parents born in Morocco usually prefer to speak in Dutch about work- or school related
subjects. The first generation and the second generation with one parent born in Morocco
prefer to speak about politics in both languages equally, while those with two parents born in
Morocco usually prefer to speak Dutch. When speaking about popular culture, the second
generation Moroccans with both parents born in Morocco show a slight tendency towards
Dutch, while the other two groups have no clear preference. All generations prefer to speak
about religion in Arabic or Berber and they show no clear preference for any language when it
comes to education in the own language or culture.
Which language do you prefer First generation
when you talk about these
Moroccans
subjects?
(born in the
Netherlands)
1. Every day things
2. School or work affairs
3. Politics
4. Popular culture
5. Religion
6. Education in the own language
and culture
2,78
(1,009)
2,56
(1,053)
2,78
(1,125)
2,81
(1,100)
3,55
(0,882)
3,12
(0,957)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
2,57
(0,787)
2,57
(0,787)
3
(0,816)
2,86
(0,690)
3,43
(0,787)
3,29
(0,756)
2,77
(0,951)
2,15
(1,084)
2,42
(1,065)
2,50
(1,105)
3,42
(0,902)
2,85
(1,008)
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
2,76
(0,970)
2,44
(1,051)
2,69
(1,092)
2,73
(1,076)
3,51
(0,874)
3,05
(0,959)
Table 5.9: Scores of question 16 of section 7, on language preference patterns. The items were originally in Dutch. One means ‘always
Dutch’, five means ‘always Arabic/Berber’. Between brackets are the standard deviations.
59
Table 6 shows the importance of the Arabic and/or Berber language to accomplish things as
making friends or earn money. For these statements a five point Likert scale was used,
ranging from one (totally unimportant) to five (totally important).
How important is the
Arabic/Berber language to
accomplish the next things?
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
1. Make friends
3,22
(1,215)
2,86
(1,069)
2,42
(1,172)
2,97
(1,233)
2. Earn money
2,57
(1,171)
2,52
(1,217)
2,38
(1,254)
2,40
(1,213)
2,29
(1,284)
2,59
(1,155)
4,03
(1,008)
3,97
(0,955)
3,83
(1,011)
2,38
(1,309)
2,21
(1,181)
2,79
(1,229)
2,36
(1,150)
2,29
(0,951)
2
(0,577)
2,14
(0,900)
2
(0,577)
2,29
(0,951)
2
(0,577)
3,57
(0,535)
4,14
(0,378)
3,86
(0,690)
2
(1,000)
2,43
(1,134)
2,29
(1,254)
1,71
(0,756)
2,23
(1,142)
2,42
(1,102)
2,15
(0,881)
2,27
(1,079)
2,04
(0,871)
2,58
(1,065)
4,15
(0,967)
3,92
(1,129)
3,65
(1,231)
1,92
(0,796)
2,12
(0,993)
2,96
(1,428)
2,19
(0,981)
2,45
(1,148)
2,45
(1,148)
2,30
(1,130)
2,33
(1,136)
2,22
(1,153)
2,54
(1,099)
4,03
(0,971)
3,97
(0,971)
3,78
(1,052)
2,22
(1,172)
2,20
(1,118)
2,79
(1,287)
2,26
(1,084)
3. Study
4. Find a job
5. Get better education
6. Reside
7. Have something to say in the
community
8. Raise children
9. Being accepted in the Moroccan
community
10. Talk to Moroccan friends
11. Being accepted by Dutch people
12. Talking to colleagues
13. Travelling
14. Trading
Table 6: Scores of question 16 of section 7, on the importance of the Arabic/Berber language in daily life according to generation. The items
were originally in Dutch. Answer range is between 1and 5, one meaning ‘totally unimportant’ and five meaning ‘totally important’. Between
brackets are the standard deviations.
As is shown in this table, the first generation Moroccans think that their home language is
slightly more important to make friends as the other two groups do. The home language is
considered unimportant for earning money, studying, finding a job, get better education and
60
residing in the Netherlands. For having something to say in the community the home language
is considered slightly more important. The home language is considered important for raising
children, being accepted in the Moroccan society and for talking to Moroccan friends. The
second generation respondents with both parents born in Morocco find their home language
more important for child rearing than the other two groups and the second generation with one
parent born in Morocco finds it more important for talking to Moroccan friends. The home
language is considered to be unimportant for being accepted by Dutch people, for talking to
colleagues, for travelling and for trading. Only the second generation respondents with both
parents born in Morocco find it slightly more important for travelling.
The last table shows how the respondents think about the Dutch and Arabic or Berber
languages.
What do you think of Arabic /
Berber and Dutch language?
1. It sounds nice
2. It sounds friendly
3. It sounds posh
4. It sounds polite
5. It sounds cosy
6. It sounds modern
First generation
Moroccans
(born in the
Netherlands)
3,33
(0,685)
3,05
(0,826)
3,09
(0,923)
3,07
(0,971)
3,29
(1,060)
2,93
(1,006)
Second generation
Moroccans (born in
the Netherlands)
One
parent
born in
Morocco
Both
parents
born in
Morocco
3
(0,577)
2,57
(0,976)
2,57
(0,976)
3
(0,816)
2,57
(0,976)
2,71
(0,951)
3,50
(0,949)
3,31
(1,158)
3,42
(1,172)
3,12
(1,071)
3,46
(1,240)
2,38
(1,134)
Total of first
and second
generation
Moroccans
3,35
(0,766)
3,09
(0,950)
3,14
(1,017)
3,08
(0,980)
3,29
(1,118)
2,76
(1,058)
Table 6.1: Scores of question 16 of section 7, on qualifications of languages. The items were originally in Dutch. One means ‘I find that only
of Dutch’, five means ‘I find that only of Arabic/Berber’. Between brackets are the standard deviations.
In general, all respondents think that all languages sound equally nice, but the second
generation respondents with two Moroccan parents think that Arabic or Berber sounds nice.
The first generation respondents and the second generation respondents with one parent born
in Morocco think that both languages sound equally friendly, but the second generation
Moroccans with both parents born in Morocco think that Arabic and/or Berber sounds more
friendly than Dutch. All generations think that all languages sound equally posh and equally
polite. Both the first generation respondents and the second generation respondents with both
parents born in Morocco think that Arabic and Berber sound more cosy than Dutch. All
groups agree that Dutch sounds slightly more modern than Arabic or Berber.
61
Chapter 5
5.1
Conclusions and discussion
Conclusions
The main research question of this study was : “What is the degree of relationship between
acculturation orientations and language maintenance or shift of different generations?”.
The following subordinate questions were distinguished:
1. Which acculturation orientation can be found amongst two generations of Moroccans in the
Netherlands?
2. Does language maintenance or language shift take place within two generations of
Moroccans in the Netherlands?
3. To what extent do Moroccans in the Netherlands support home language and cultural
maintenance?
As to subordinate question number 1, it was hypothesized that the first generation Moroccans
are, in line with Berry’s acculturation framework, expected to have a more seperationist
acculturation orientation, while the second generation prefers to integrate into the Dutch
society. The future third generation is likely to move more in the direction of assimilation.
The results in chapter 4 show that most first generation respondents consider themselves as
Moroccan, while most second generation respondents feel belongingness with both groups
equally. For first generation Moroccans, being Moroccan is a more important part of their
cultural identity than it is for second generation Moroccans, but second generation Moroccans
are more happy to be Moroccan than first generation respondents are. First generation
respondents know a lot about Moroccan traditions, norms and values and live accordingly, but
there is no significant difference with the second generation Moroccans. First generation and
second generation respondents with both parents born in Morocco say they have more contact
with Moroccans, while the group of second generation Moroccans with one parent born in
Morocco says they have contact with both the Dutch and the Moroccan groups in the
Netherlands equally as much. All groups say they spend more time with family and Moroccan
friends than with Dutch friends, and all groups say they have more Moroccan friends than
Dutch friends and their social networks are mainly Moroccan-oriented. It can therefore be
concluded that both the first and the second generation respondents show a slight tendency
towards seperationist acculturation orientations, but it is not a clear preference.
For the second subordinate research question, it was hypothesized that minority group
members with a more seperationist or marginalist acculturation orientation will maintain their
home language across generations, more than minority group members with an assimilationist
or integrationist acculturation strategy are expected to do. Of the three distinguished groups in
this study (first generation respondents, second generation respondents with one parent born
in Morocco and second generation respondents with both parents born in Morocco), the first
generation respondents were expected to have a more seperationist acculturation orientation,
62
meaning that they were also expected to maintain their home language. The results in chapter
4 do not show that first generation respondents use Arabic or Berber more often than the other
groups and they also do not show that the second generation respondents speak Dutch more
often than the first generation respondents do. The slight differences that were found are not
significant. Only when it comes to emotional situations (table 5.8), it can be observed that the
first generation Moroccans prefer to use Arabic or Berber when they are tired, tense, angry, in
a hurry, in a good mood and confused, while the second generation respondents are less
outspoken in their choice. Unfortunately, these results are also not significant. In general, it
can be said that both the first and second generation respondents do not show a clear tendency
towards intergenerational language shift. The third hypothesis, in which it was expected that
the second and third generation will shift more towards the second language (Dutch), can be
confirmed. Even though the results are not significant, they show that the second generation
Moroccans shift more towards Dutch than their preceding generation did. The fourth
hypothesis, which is connected to the third subordinate question, was that all generations are
in favour of bilingualism and biculturalism in the public domain, while they prefer cultural
maintenance in the private domain. This expected distinction can be found in the results. For
the respondents, language and religion are connected to their cultural identity. This goes for
all generations. All groups agree that foreigners in the Netherlands may speak their own
language and behave according to their own norms and values in the public domain, but with
respect to the Dutch norms and values. In the private domain, they believe they are free to
speak their own language and behave according to their own norms and values. All groups
say that ethnic minorities should receive help to maintain their cultural heritage, that minority
groups can maintain their own culture also in the public domain, and that minority group
parents should encourage their children to maintain the culture and traditions of the native
country. All groups say that people who come to live in the Netherlands should not
necessarily adapt their behavior to the behavior of the majority.
It was hypothesized that there is a relation between acculturation orientations and language
maintenance or shift patterns. The main question considered the degree of this relationship.
The results of this study show that a more seperationist acculturation orientation goes hand in
hand with a preference for bilingualism and biculturalism in the public domain and with
cultural maintenance in the private domain.
5.2
Discussion
Unfortunately the results of this study were not significant. Several possible explanations for
this can be given. During data collection, it became clear that the Dutch descent of the
researcher led to mistrust and unwillingness to cooperate. The negative image of Moroccans
presented in the media, has caused feelings of injustice and rebellion. For this reason, it is
possible that the respondents answered in a social desirable way in order to not deteriorate the
already negative representation. This could also explain why the results are not significant and
why there are no big differences found between the generations. This was partly solved by
asking Moroccan key people for their help, but even after that, social desirable answers were
63
given. Besides that, most questionnaires (about 80%) were filled out online, which might have
influenced the reliability. Another weakness in this study is that the distinction into
generations was somewhat vague. With the second generation respondents who have one
parent born in Morocco, the birth country of the other parent was not specified. Besides that,
there were no third generation respondents. The distinction into generations was made solely
on birth country and birth country of the parents; age group and length of stay were hereby
not taken into account. This means that a Moroccan youngster of 25 who came to the
Netherlands in 2005 is considered a first generation immigrant, just as the Moroccan worker
who came in the 1960s. It is clear that these two people have completely different preferences
and make completely different life choices. They might have different acculturation
orientations and this might also influence their language use patterns. In future research this
fact should be taken into account.
64
References
Ait Ouarasse, O. (2003). What immigration does to young people, the psychological
acculturation of Moroccans in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Dutch University Press.
Ammerlaan, A. (1997). `Corrosion' or `loss' of emigrant Dutch in Australia: An experiment on
first language attrition. In: Kroon, S. and Klatter-Folmer, J. (eds.) Dutch Overseas. Studies in
Maintenance, Shift and Loss of Dutch as an Immigrant Language. Tilburg: Tilburg University
Press, p 69-85.
Arends-Tóth, J. & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2003). Multiculturalism and acculturation: Views
of Dutch and Turkish-Dutch. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, p 249-266.
Ballard, C. (1979). Conflict, continuity and change. Second-generation South-Asians. In: S.V.
Kahn (Ed.), Minority families in Britain. London: Macmillan.
Banks, M. (1996). Ethnicity. Anthropological constructions. London: Routledge.
Beiser, M., Barwick, C., Berry, J.W., da Costa, G., Fantino, A., Ganesan, S., Lee, C., Milne,
W., Naidoo, J., Prince, R., Tousignant, M., & Vela, E. (1988). Mental health issues affecting
immigrants and refugees. Ottawa: Health and Welfare Canada.
Berry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation. In: J.J. Berman (Ed.), Cross-cultural
perspectives. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1989, University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Berry, J.W. (1997) Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 46, p 5-68.
Berry, J.W. & Kalin, R. (1995). Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science, 27, p 301–320.
Bourhis, R. Y., Mouse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive
acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology,
32, 6, p 369-386.
Clyne, M. (2003). 'Dynamics of language shift'. Dynamics of language contact. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Clyne, M. & Pauwels, A. (1997). Use, Maintenance, Structures, and Future of Dutch in
Australia. In: Klatter-Folmer, J. and Kroon, S. (Eds.). Dutch overseas: Studies in maintenance
and loss of Dutch as an immigrant language. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press: p 33-49.
Dion, K.L. & Earn, B.M. (1975). The phenomenology of being a target of prejudice. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, p 944-950.
El Aissati, A. (1996). Language loss among native speakers of Moroccan Arabic in the
Netherlands. Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.
Fenton, S. (2003). Ethnicity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
65
Fishman, J.A. (1989). Language & Ethnicity in minority sociolinguistic perspective.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD, p 1-65.
Graaf, H. de (1985). Plaatselijke organisaties van Turken en Marokkanen. ‘s Gravenhage:
Nederlands instituut voor maatschappelijk werk onderzoek, p 19-24.
Graves, T. (1967). Psychological acculturation in a tri-ethnic community. South-Western
Journal of Anthropology, 23, p 337–350.
Guibernau, M. & Rex, J. (1997). The Ethnicity Reader: nationalism, multiculturalism and
migration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hagendoorn, L. (1991). Determinants and dynamics of national stereotypes. Politics and the
Individual, 1, p 13-16.
Heelsum, A. van (2001). Marokkaanse organisaties in Nederland. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
Heelsum, A. van, Fennema, M., Tillie, J. (2004) Moslim in Nederland. Islamitische
Organisaties in Nederland. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Hutnik, N. (1991). Ethnic minority identity. A social psychological perspective. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Jayasuriya, L., Sang, D., & Fielding, A. (1992). Ethnicity, immigration and mental illness: A
critical review of Australian research. Canberra: Bureau of Immigration Research.
Jurgens, F. (2007). Het Marokkanendrama. Amsterdam: J.M. Meulenhoff BV.
Kim, U. (1988). Acculturation of Korean immigrants to Canada. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Queen’s University, Canada.
Kitwood, T. (1983). Self-conception among young British-Asian muslims. Confutation of a
stereotype. In: G. Breakwell (Ed.), Threatened identities. London: Wiley.
Kloss, H. (1966). 'German-American language maintenance efforts'. Language loyalty in the
United States. The Hague: Mouton, p 206-252.
Koomen, W. & Fränkel, E.G. (1992). Effects of experienced discrimination and different
forms of relative deprivation among Surinamese, a Dutch ethnic minority Group. Journal of
Community & Applied Social Psychology, 2, p 63-71.
Laroche, M., Kim, C., Hui, M.K. & Tomiuk, M.A. (1998). Test of nonlinear relationships
between linguistic acculturation and ethnic identification. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 29, 3, p 418-433.
Liebkind, K. (2003). Acculturation. In: R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook
of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, p 386-406.
66
Liebkind, K. (2006). Ethnic identity and acculturation. In: D.L. Sam & J.W. Berry (Eds.), The
Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
p 78-96.
Lubbers, M., Scheepers, P. & Wester, F. (1998). Ethnic minorities in Dutch newspapers 199095. Journal of Educational Media, 60, p 415-431.
Luhtanen, R. & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: self evaluation of one’s
social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18, p 302-318.
Nguyen, H.H., Messé L.A. & Stollak, G.E. (1999). Toward a more complex understanding of
acculturation and adjustment. Cultural involvements and psychosocial functioning in
Vietnamese youth. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 1, p 5-31.
Noels, K.A., Pon, G. & Clément, R. (1996). Language, identity and adjustment. The role of
linguistic self-confidence in the acculturation process. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 15, 3, p 246-264.
Obdeijn, H. (1993). Op weg naar werk ver van huis. Migrantenstudies, 9, 4, p 34.
Obdeijn, H. & De Mas, P. (2001). De Marokkaanse uitdaging. De tweede generatie in een
veranderend Nederland. Utrecht: Forum, Instituut voor Multiculturele Ontwikkeling.
Oudenhoven, J.P. van & Eisses, A.M. (1998). Integration and assimilation of Moroccan
immigrants in Israel and the Netherlands, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26,
p 293-307.
Pauwels, A. (1985). The role of mixed marriages in language shift in the Dutch communities.
Australia, meeting place of languages. Canberra: ANU, Pacific Linguistics.
Phalet, K. & Ter Wal, J. (2004). Moslim in Nederland. Een onderzoek naar de religieuze
betrokkenheid van Turken en Marokkanen. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Phinney, J.S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and adults: Review of research.
Psychological Bulletin, 108, 3, p 499-514.
Phinney, J.S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K. & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration,
and well-being: an interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57, p 493-510.
Phinney, J.S. (2003). Ethnic identity and acculturation. In: K.M. Chun, P. Balls-Organista &
G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: advances in theory, measurement, and applied research.
Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association, p 63-81.
Praag, C. van (Ed.) (2006). Marokkanen in Nederland: een profiel. Rapport 67. Den Haag:
Nederlands Interdisciplinair Demografisch Instituut.
Redfield, R., Linton, R. & Herskovits, M. (1936). Memorandum on the study of acculturation.
American Anthropologist, 38, p 149-152.
67
Rosenthal, D.A. & Feldman, S.S. (1992). The nature of stability of ethnic identity in Chinese
youth. Effects of length of residence in two cultural contexts. Journal or Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 23, p 214-227.
Shadid, W.A. (1979). Moroccan workers in the Netherlands. Leiden: Leiden University.
Smolicz, J.J. (1981). 'Core values and ethnic identity'. Ethnic and racial studies, 4, p 75-90.
Smolicz, J.J. (1992). 'Minority languages as core values of ethnic cultures'. In: Fase et al.
(Eds.), Maintenance and loss of minority languages, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Snauwaert, B., Soenens, B., Vanbeselaere, N. & Boen, F. (2003). When Integration Does Not
Necessarily Imply Integration: Different Conceptualizations of Acculturation Orientations
Lead to Different Classifications. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 34, 2, p 231-239.
Sociale Positie en Voorzieningengebruik Allochtonen (2002). Sociaal en Cultureel
Planbureau i.s.m. Bureau Veldkamp. Amsterdam.
Stevens, G., Pels, T., Vollebergh, W. & Crijnen, A. (2004). Patterns of psychological
acculturation in adult and adolescent Moroccan immigrants living in the Netherlands. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 6, p 689-704.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup behavior. In: W.G. Austin
& W.C. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole, p 33-47.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ullah, P. (1987). Self-definition and psychological group formation in an ethnic minority.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, p 17-23.
Verkuyten, M. (1998). Perceived discrimination and self-esteem among minority adolescents.
Journal of Social Psychology, 138, p 479-493.
Verkuyten, M. (1999). Etnische identiteit. Theoretische en empirische benaderingen.
Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
Verkuyten, M. (2000). The benefits to social psychology of studying ethnic minorities.
European Bulletin of Social Psychology, 12, 3, p 5-21.
Verkuyten, M. (2005). The Social Psychology of Ethnic Identity. New York: Psychology
Press. 9-90.
68
Waas, M. (1996). Language attrition downunder. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Ward, C. (1996). Acculturation. In: D. Landis & B. Bhagat, Handbook in intercultural
training. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, p 124-147.
Ward, C. (2001). The A, B, Cs of acculturation. In D. R. Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of
culture and psychology. San Francisco: Oxford University Press, p 411-445).
Ward, C. & Kennedy, A. (1992). Locus of control, mood disturbance and social difficulty
during cross-cultural transitions. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, p 175–
194.
Watson, J.L. (1977). Between two cultures. Migrants and minorities in Britain. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Wentholt, R. (1967) (red.) Buitenlandse arbeiders in Nederland. Leiden: Spruyt, van
Mantgem & de Does.
Wentholt, R. (1991). Membership identity. Structure and dynamics. Rotterdam: Erasmus
Universiteit.
69
Appendix 1: Questionnaire in Dutch
70
VRAGENLIJST OVER TAAL, CULTUUR EN IDENTITEIT
Als een persoon in een land woont, maar een andere culturele achtergrond heeft dan de cultuur van
dat land, dan is het mogelijk dat er een interactie is tussen deze twee verschillende culturen.
Iemand van Marokkaanse afkomst die in Nederland woont, kan bijvoorbeeld invloed hebben op de
Nederlandse cultuur. Andersom kan de Nederlandse cultuur deze persoon ook beïnvloeden. Zonder
hiervan bewust te zijn, kan zo’n persoon bepaalde elementen van de Nederlandse cultuur
overnemen. Deze uitwisseling van culturen noemen we ‘culturele interactie’. Deze culturele
interactie beperkt zich niet alleen tot de eerste generatie (die personen die als immigrant in een
cultuur zijn komen wonen), maar kan verschillende generaties beïnvloeden. Met deze vragenlijst
willen we onderzoeken wat de invloed is van culturele interactie (ook wel ‘acculturatie’ genoemd)
op diverse generaties Marokkanen in Nederland.
In de vragenlijst kunnen sommige vragen misschien ongebruikelijk lijken, maar in het kader van
deze academische studie zijn alle vragen zeer nuttig. Daarom willen we u vragen om alle vragen zo
goed en serieus mogelijk te beantwoorden.
Er worden in de vragenlijst ‘antwoordschalen’ gebruikt. De bedoeling is dat u het nummer omcirkelt
dat het meest overeenkomt met uw mening. Hieronder volgen 2 voorbeelden.
Bijvoorbeeld, als u vindt dat Nederland een mooi land is, dan kunt u cijfer 5 omcirkelen (geheel
mee eens).
Nederland is een
mooi land.
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee eens
1
2
3
4
5
Als u van mening bent dat Nederland GEEN mooi land is, kunt u cijfer 1 omcirkelen (geheel mee
oneens).
Nederland is een
mooi land.
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee eens
1
2
3
4
5
Al uw gegevens worden strikt vertrouwelijk en anoniem behandeld. Het invullen van de vragenlijst
neemt ongeveer 15 minuten in beslag. Alvast hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking.
Voor al uw vragen of opmerkingen:
A. Lansbergen
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel: 06-18282419
71
DEEL 1: PERSOONSGEGEVENS
1) Geslacht:
0
Vrouw
0
Man
2) Geboortedatum: ………-……… 19 ………
3) Geboorteland
0
Marokko
0
Nederland
0
Anders, namelijk……………………………………
4) Hoe lang woont u in Nederland? ……… jaar
5) In welk land is uw vader geboren?
0
Marokko
0
Nederland
0
Anders, namelijk ……………………………………
6) In welk land is uw moeder geboren?
0
Marokko
0
Nederland
0
Anders, namelijk ……………………………………
7) Wat is uw woonplaats? ……………………………………
8) Wat is uw laatst behaalde schooldiploma? ……………………………………
9) Wat is uw beroep? ……………………………………
10) Bent u getrouwd?
0
Ja
0
Nee
11) Indien u getrouwd bent, in welk land is uw partner geboren?
0
Marokko
0
Nederland
0
Anders, namelijk ……………………………………
12) Hoe vaak keert u terug naar uw moederland?
0
Vaker dan een keer per jaar
0
Een keer per jaar
0
Eens per 2 jaar
0
Eens per 3 jaar
72
DEEL 2: MULTICULTURALITEITSINDEX
Geef bij onderstaande stellingen aan in hoeverre u het ermee eens bent
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee
eens
1) Nederlanders moeten
accepteren dat Nederland
bestaat uit groepen van
verschillende culturele
achtergronden
1
2
3
4
5
2) Etnische minderheden
(allochtonen) moeten hulp
krijgen om hun culturele
achtergrond in Nederland te
kunnen behouden
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3) Het is het beste voor
Nederland als alle mensen hun
culturele achtergrond zo snel
mogelijk vergeten
4) Een multiculturele
samenleving is beter in staat om
problemen op te lossen dan een
niet-multiculturele samenleving
5) De harmonie van Nederland is
verzwakt door minderheidsgroepen (allochtonen) die
vasthouden aan hun
oorspronkelijke culturele
waarden
6) Als minderheidsgroepen
(allochtonen) hun eigen cultuur
willen behouden, dan moeten ze
dat niet in het openbaar doen
7) Een land waarin verschillende
culturele groepen wonen, heeft
meer problemen met het creëren
van eenheid, dan landen waarin
maar 1 of 2 culturele groepen
wonen
8) Nederlanders (autochtonen)
moeten meer moeite doen om te
leren over de culturen van de
minderheidsgroepen
(allochtonen) die in Nederland
wonen
73
9) Allochtone ouders moeten hun
kinderen aanmoedigen de
cultuur en tradities van het
moederland te behouden
10) Mensen die in Nederland
komen wonen, moeten hun
gedrag aanpassen aan het gedrag
van Nederlanders
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
DEEL 3: DE NEDERLANDSE EN DE MAROKKAANSE CULTUUR
1) Er wonen verschillende culturele groepen in Nederland. Tot welke groep vindt u dat u behoort?
0
De MAROKKAANSE groep
0
De NEDERLANDSE groep
0
Tot BEIDE groepen evenveel
0
Anders, namelijk …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee
eens
2) Ik voel me Marokkaans
1
2
3
4
5
3) Ik voel me Nederlands
1
2
3
4
5
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee
eens
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
4) Ik voel me Marokkaans, omdat
Ik Arabisch/Berber spreek
Ik een Moslim ben
74
Ik veel kennis heb van mijn
religie
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee
eens
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Ik volgens de Marokkaanse
normen en waarden leef
Mijn ouders Marokkaans zijn
Ik volgens de Marokkaanse
traditie ben opgevoed
Ik er Marokkaans uitzie
Ik me meer op mijn gemak voel
bij Marokkanen
Andere mensen me beschouwen
als Marokkaan(se)
De Nederlandse cultuur mij niet
aanspreekt
5) Ik voel me Nederlands, omdat
Ik Nederlands spreek
Ik goed op de hoogte ben van de
Nederlandse normen en waarden
en tradities
75
Ik volgens de Nederlandse
normen, waarden en tradities
leef
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee
eens
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Ik als Nederlander ben opgevoed
Ik er Nederlands uitzie
Ik me meer op mijn gemak voel
bij Nederlanders
Andere mensen me beschouwen
als Nederlander
De Marokkanen in Nederland en
hun cultuur me niet aanspreken
6) Omcirkel bij de volgende stellingen het cijfer dat voor u het meest van toepassing is.
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee
eens
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Ik ben er blij mee dat ik
Marokkaans ben
Ik voel een band met andere
Marokkanen
Het feit dat ik Marokkaans ben,
zegt niks over wat voor persoon
ik ben
Ik vind het vervelend dat ik
Marokkaans ben
Wanneer mensen het over
Marokkanen hebben voel ik me
aangesproken
76
Marokkaans zijn vormt een
belangrijk deel van mijn
culturele identiteit
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Het feit dat ik Nederlands ben,
zegt niks over wat voor persoon
ik ben
1
2
3
4
5
Wanneer mensen het over
Nederlanders hebben voel ik me
aangesproken
1
2
3
4
5
Nederlands zijn vormt een
belangrijk deel van mijn
culturele identiteit
1
2
3
4
5
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee
eens
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Alleen
Meer
Marokkaans
dan Nederlands
Meer
Nederlands dan
Marokkaans
Alleen
Nederlands
Ik ben er trots op dat ik
Marokkaans ben
Wanneer ik over Marokkanen
spreek, dan heb ik het over
“WIJ, Marokkanen”
In veel opzichten ben ik net als
andere Marokkanen
Ik ben er blij mee dat ik
Nederlands ben
Ik voel een band met andere
Nederlanders
Ik vind het vervelend dat ik
Nederlands ben
Wanneer ik over Nederlanders
spreek, dan heb ik het over
“WIJ, Nederlanders”
In veel opzichten ben ik net als
andere Nederlanders
7) Voelt u zichzelf meer
Marokkaans of meer Nederlands?
Marokkaans
Zowel
Marokkaans als
Nederlands
(gelijk)
77
8) In welke situaties of omstandigheden voelt u zich meer Marokkaans dan Nederlands?
9) In welke situaties of omstandigheden voelt u zich meer Nederlands dan Marokkaans?
10) Omcirkel bij de volgende stellingen het cijfer dat voor u het meest van toepassing is.
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee
eens
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Ik ken veel van de Marokkaanse
tradities en ik leef volgens deze
tradities
1
2
3
4
5
Ik ken veel van de Nederlandse
tradities en ik leef volgens deze
tradities
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Ik weet veel af van de
Marokkaanse cultuur
Ik weet veel af van de
Nederlandse cultuur
Ik weet af van Marokkaanse
culturele normen en waarden
Ik weet af van Nederlandse
culturele normen en waarden
Marokkaanse waarden (zoals de
Marokkaanse vlag en
geschiedenis) hebben veel
betekenis voor mij
Nederlandse waarden (zoals de
Nederlandse vlag en
geschiedenis) hebben veel
betekenis voor mij
De Marokkaanse cultuur heeft
veel invloed op wie ik ben
78
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee
eens
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
In mijn vrije tijd, neem ik deel
aan Marokkaanse culturele
activiteiten
1
2
3
4
5
In mijn vrije tijd, neem ik deel
aan Nederlandse culturele
activiteiten
1
2
3
4
5
De Nederlandse cultuur heeft
veel invloed op wie ik ben
De Marokkaanse cultuur heeft
een positief effect op mijn leven
De Nederlandse cultuur heeft
een positief effect op mijn leven
Ik leef volgens de Marokkaanse
normen en waarden
Ik leef volgens de Nederlandse
normen en waarden
Ik luister naar Marokkaanse
muziek
Ik luister naar Nederlandse
muziek
Ik volg het Marokkaanse nieuws
Ik volg het Nederlandse nieuws
Ik eet het liefst Marokkaans eten
Ik eet het liefst Nederlands eten
DEEL 4: GELOOFSOVERTUIGING
79
Omdat de vragen in dit onderdeel te maken hebben met uw persoonlijke leven en uw
geloofsovertuiging, is het mogelijk dat u sommige vragen te gevoelig of puur persoonlijk vindt. We
respecteren deze gevoelens, maar willen u toch vragen om de vragen te beantwoorden. Als
onderzoekers willen we alleen bekijken of er ten aanzien van geloofsovertuiging verschillen te
vinden zijn tussen verschillende generaties, zonder daar oordelen over te vellen. Indien we vragen
stellen die u kwetsen of die tegen uw persoonlijke geloof indruisen, willen we ons graag vooraf
excuseren.
11) Omcirkel bij de volgende stellingen het cijfer dat voor u het meest van toepassing is.
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee
eens
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Ik ben een Moslim
Ik weet veel af van de Islam
Ik ben goed op de hoogte van de
Islamitische regels
Ik weet hoe ik mijn godsdienst behoor uit
te oefenen
Ik voel een sterke band met Moslims
80
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee
eens
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Wanneer ik beslissingen maak in het
dagelijks leven, beïnvloeden Islamitische
regels me hierbij
1
2
3
4
5
De Islam moet een rol spelen in het sociale
leven en op politiek gebied in Nederland
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
De Islam betekent heel veel voor mij
Wanneer mensen het over Moslims hebben
voel ik me aangesproken
Ik ben een voorstander van een strikte
toepassing van Islamitische regels
Islamitisch geloof is een persoonlijke zaak
De Islam is een inspiratiebron voor mij in
het dagelijks leven
Ik leid mijn leven zonder prioriteit te
geven aan Islamitische regels
Ik ben een praktiserend Moslim
Ik vast tijdens de Ramadan
Ik vier religieuze festiviteiten
Ik eet het liefst Halal vlees
Ik vind dat geloof een persoonlijke zaak is
81
DEEL 5: SOCIAAL NETWERK
12) Omcirkel bij de volgende stellingen het cijfer dat voor u het meest van toepassing is.
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee
eens
Ik heb veel Marokkaanse
vrienden
1
2
3
4
5
Ik heb veel Nederlandse vrienden
1
2
3
4
5
In mijn vrije tijd ga ik naar
bijvoorbeeld cafés, theehuizen
en verenigingen om Marokkaanse
mensen te ontmoeten
1
2
3
4
5
In mijn vrije tijd ga ik naar
bijvoorbeeld cafés en
verenigingen om Nederlandse
mensen te ontmoeten
1
2
3
4
5
Ik ben lid van een Marokkaanse
vereniging/organisatie
1
2
3
4
5
Ik ben lid van een Nederlandse
vereniging/organisatie
1
2
3
4
5
Er wonen veel Marokkanen in de
wijk waar ik woon
1
2
3
4
5
82
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee
eens
Ik voel me het meest op mijn
gemak bij Marokkanen
1
2
3
4
5
Ik voel me het meest op mijn
gemak bij Nederlanders
1
2
3
4
5
Ik ken Nederlanders goed
1
2
3
4
5
Ik ken Marokkanen goed
1
2
3
4
5
Ik houd van de manier waarop
Marokkanen met elkaar omgaan
1
2
3
4
5
Ik houd van de manier waarop
Nederlanders met elkaar omgaan
1
2
3
4
5
Ik heb een sterke band met mijn
familie
1
2
3
4
5
Ik heb een sterke band met mijn
Marokkaanse vrienden
1
2
3
4
5
Ik heb een sterke band met mijn
Nederlandse vrienden
1
2
3
4
5
Ik heb veel Marokkaanse
vrienden die ik échte vrienden
kan noemen
1
2
3
4
5
Ik heb veel Nederlandse vrienden
die ik échte vrienden kan
noemen
1
2
3
4
5
Persoonlijke zaken bespreek ik
met mijn Marokkaanse vrienden
1
2
3
4
5
Persoonlijke zaken bespreek ik
met mijn Nederlandse vrienden
1
2
3
4
5
Wanneer ik hulp nodig heb bij
alledaagse dingen, dan vraag ik
om hulp bij mijn Marokkaanse
vrienden
1
2
3
4
5
Wanneer ik hulp nodig heb bij
alledaagse dingen, dan vraag ik
om hulp bij mijn Nederlandse
vrienden
1
2
3
4
5
Alleen met
Marokkanen
Meer met
Marokkanen
Met allebei
evenveel
contact
Meer met
Nederlanders
Alleen met
Nederlanders
Over het algemeen: heeft u meer
contact met Marokkanen of
Nederlanders?
83
13) Met wie brengt u de meeste tijd door? Maak een rangschikking hiervan door middel van de
cijfers 1 tot en met 5. Het cijfer 1 betekent dat u de meeste tijd met deze persoon doorbrengt,
5 is het cijfer dat aangeeft met wie u het minste tijd doorbrengt.
..... Met familie
..... Met Marokkaanse vrienden
..... Met Nederlandse vrienden
..... Met Marokkaanse kennissen (kennissen zijn ‘bekenden’ met wie u regelmatig omgaat)
..... Met Nederlandse kennissen (kennissen zijn ‘bekenden’ met wie u regelmatig omgaat)
14) Omcirkel bij de volgende stellingen het cijfer dat voor u het meest van toepassing is.
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee
eens
Marokkanen in Nederland die
stoppen met het spreken van
Arabisch/Berber verliezen hun
Marokkaanse identiteit
1
2
3
4
5
Marokkanen in Nederland die
stoppen met het praktiseren van
de Islam verliezen hun
Marokkaanse identiteit
1
2
3
4
5
Marokkanen in Nederland die hun
Marokkaanse normen en waarden
verliezen, verliezen hun
Marokkaanse identiteit
1
2
3
4
5
Marokkanen in Nederland kunnen
als één groep naar buiten treden
1
2
3
4
5
Marokkanen in Nederland hebben
een sterke band als groep
1
2
3
4
5
Marokkanen in Nederland hebben
genoeg organisaties en
stichtingen om hun belangen te
behartigen
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Marokkaanse organisaties en
stichtingen bezorgen een
positieve bijdrage aan de
84
Marokkaanse gemeenschap
De Marokkanen in Nederland
komen altijd voor elkaar op
1
2
3
4
5
De Marokkaanse gemeenschap is
goed vertegenwoordigd in de
Nederlandse politiek
1
2
3
4
5
Nederlanders denken doorgaans
negatief over Marokkanen
1
2
3
4
5
Nederlanders waarderen de
Marokkaanse taal en cultuur
1
2
3
4
5
Nederlanders denken negatief
over de Marokkaanse taal en
cultuur
1
2
3
4
5
Nederlanders discrimineren
Marokkanen
1
2
3
4
5
Er zijn voldoende instanties die
lesgeven in Marokkaanse talen
1
2
3
4
5
In de wijk waar ik woon zijn er
voldoende Marokkaanse
organisaties, theehuizen,
winkels, etcetera
1
2
3
4
5
De Marokkaanse gemeenschap in
Nederland beschikt over
voldoende Marokkaanse media
(kranten, televisie, etcetera)
1
2
3
4
5
Als een Marokkaan een probleem
heeft, dan weet hij/zij dat de
Marokkaanse gemeenschap kan
helpen
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Binnen 20 tot 30 jaar zullen de
Marokkanen in Nederland beter
georganiseerd zijn en zal er
meer saamhorigheid bestaan
binnen de Marokkaanse
gemeenschap
Binnen 20 tot 30 jaar zullen de
Marokkanen in Nederland niet
meer een gemeenschap vormen
en zal een gezamenlijke
groepsidentiteit niet meer
bestaan
85
DEEL 6: ALLOCHTONEN IN NEDERLAND
15) Omcirkel bij de volgende stellingen het cijfer dat voor u het meest van toepassing is.
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee
eens
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Allochtonen in Nederland mogen
leven volgens de normen en
waarden van hun eigen cultuur
1
2
3
4
5
Allochtonen in Nederland mogen
de normen en waarden van hun
eigen cultuur waarderen
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Allochtonen in Nederland moeten
Nederlands spreken
Allochtonen in Nederland moeten
de Nederlandse normen en
waarden belangrijker vinden dan
normen en waarden van andere
culturen
Allochtonen in Nederland mogen
in hun eigen moedertaal
(bijvoorbeeld Arabisch of Berber)
spreken
Allochtonen in Nederland horen
te leven volgens de normen en
waarden van de Nederlandse
cultuur
IN HET OPENBAAR, OP HET WERK EN OP SCHOOL
De volgende stellingen gaan alleen over situaties in het openbaar, op het werk en op school, dus
niet over thuissituaties.
Allochtonen in Nederland moeten
altijd Nederlands spreken in het
openbaar, op het werk en op
school
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee
eens
1
2
3
4
5
86
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee
eens
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Geheel mee
oneens
Mee oneens
Neutraal
Mee eens
Geheel mee
eens
Allochtonen in Nederland mogen
thuis in hun eigen moedertaal
spreken
1
2
3
4
5
Allochtonen in Nederland moeten
thuis de Nederlandse normen en
waarden respecteren
1
2
3
4
5
Allochtonen in Nederland mogen
zich thuis naar hun eigen (nietNederlandse) normen en
waarden gedragen
1
2
3
4
5
Allochtonen in Nederland moeten
thuis Nederlands spreken
1
2
3
4
5
Allochtonen in Nederland mogen
in hun eigen moedertaal spreken
in het openbaar, op het werk en
op school
Allochtonen in Nederland moeten
de Nederlandse normen en
waarden respecteren in het
openbaar, op het werk en op
school
Allochtonen mogen zich naar hun
eigen (niet-Nederlandse) normen
en waarden gedragen in het
openbaar, op het werk en op
school
Allochtonen in Nederland moeten
zich gedragen naar de
Nederlandse normen en waarden
in het openbaar, op het werk en
op school
THUIS
87
DEEL 7: TAALGEBRUIK (ARABISCH OF BERBER VERSUS NEDERLANDS)
16) Omcirkel bij de volgende beweringen het cijfer dat voor u het meest van toepassing is.
Taalgebruik – Welke taal
spreekt u meestal met de
volgende personen?
Altijd
Nederlands
Meestal
Nederlands
Beiden
evenveel
Meestal
Arabisch/
Berber
Altijd
Arabisch/
Berber
Met uw vader?
1
2
3
4
5
Met uw moeder?
1
2
3
4
5
Met uw broers en zussen?
1
2
3
4
5
Met uw Marokkaanse vrienden?
1
2
3
4
5
Met Marokkaanse mensen van de
buurt?
1
2
3
4
5
Met mensen die een Marokkaanse
winkel hebben?
1
2
3
4
5
Taalgebruik – Welke taal
spreekt u meestal met de
volgende personen?
Altijd
Nederlands
Meestal
Nederlands
Beiden
evenveel
Meestal
Arabisch/
Berber
Altijd
Arabisch/
Berber
Niet van
toepassing
Met mensen in het theehuis?
1
2
3
4
5
9
Met mensen in de moskee?
1
2
3
4
5
9
Met Marokkaanse mensen die
u aan de telefoon spreekt?
1
2
3
4
5
Als de volgende mensen tegen
u spreken, welke taal
gebruiken zij dan?
9
Altijd
Nederlands
Meestal
Nederlands
Beiden
evenveel
Meestal
Arabisch/
Berber
Altijd Arabisch/
Berber
Uw vader?
1
2
3
4
5
Uw moeder?
1
2
3
4
5
Uw broers en zussen?
1
2
3
4
5
Uw vrienden?
1
2
3
4
5
Uw andere familieleden?
1
2
3
4
5
Uw Marokkaanse buren?
1
2
3
4
5
88
Welke taal gebruikt u meestal
als u… ?
Altijd
Nederlands
Meestal
Nederlands
Beiden
evenveel
Meestal
Arabisch/
Berber
Altijd Arabisch/
Berber
Denkt?
1
2
3
4
5
Droomt?
1
2
3
4
5
Rekent en telt?
1
2
3
4
5
Boeken leest?
1
2
3
4
5
De krant leest?
1
2
3
4
5
TV kijkt?
1
2
3
4
5
Naar de radio luistert?
1
2
3
4
5
Schrijft?
1
2
3
4
5
Altijd
Nederlands
Meestal
Nederlands
Beiden
evenveel
Meestal
Arabisch/
Berber
Altijd Arabisch/
Berber
Moe bent?
1
2
3
4
5
Gespannen bent?
1
2
3
4
5
Boos bent?
1
2
3
4
5
Haast heeft?
1
2
3
4
5
Ruzie maakt?
1
2
3
4
5
Vrolijk bent?
1
2
3
4
5
Verward bent?
1
2
3
4
5
Altijd
Nederlands
Meestal
Nederlands
Beiden
evenveel
Meestal
Arabisch/
Berber
Altijd
Arabisch/
Berber
Over alledaagse zaken?
1
2
3
4
5
Over zaken die op school of op
het werk gebeuren?
1
2
3
4
5
Over politieke zaken?
1
2
3
4
5
Over zaken die te maken hebben
met populaire cultuur? (zoals
muziek, televisie)
1
2
3
4
5
Over zaken die te maken hebben
met het geloof?
1
2
3
4
5
Over onderwijs in de eigen
cultuur en taal
1
2
3
4
5
Welke taal gebruikt u het liefst
als u… ?
Welke taal gebruikt u het liefst
als u over de volgende
onderwerpen spreekt?
89
Hoe belangrijk is de
Arabische/Berberse taal om de
volgende zaken in Nederland te
bewerkstelligen?
Heel
onbelangrijk
Onbelangrijk
Neutraal
Belangrijk
Heel
belangrijk
Vrienden maken
1
2
3
4
5
Geld verdienen
1
2
3
4
5
Studeren
1
2
3
4
5
Een baan vinden
1
2
3
4
5
Beter onderwijs krijgen
1
2
3
4
5
Wonen
1
2
3
4
5
Iets te zeggen hebben in de
maatschappij
1
2
3
4
5
Kinderen opvoeden
1
2
3
4
5
Geaccepteerd worden in de
Marokkaanse gemeenschap
1
2
3
4
5
Praten met Marokkaanse
vrienden
1
2
3
4
5
Geaccepteerd worden door
Nederlanders
1
2
3
4
5
Praten met collega’s
1
2
3
4
5
Reizen
1
2
3
4
5
Handel bedrijven
1
2
3
4
5
Dat vind ik
alleen van het
Nederlands
Dat vind ik
meer van het
Nederlands
dan van het
Arabisch/
Berber
Dat vind ik
voor allebei de
talen
hetzelfde
Dat vind ik
meer van
Arabisch/
Berber dan
van
Nederlands
Dat vind ik
alleen van het
Arabisch/
Berber
Het klinkt leuk
1
2
3
4
5
Het klinkt vriendelijk
1
2
3
4
5
Het klinkt deftig
1
2
3
4
5
Het klinkt beleefd
1
2
3
4
5
Het klinkt gezellig
1
2
3
4
5
Het klinkt modern
1
2
3
4
5
Wat vindt u van het
Arabisch/Berbers en het
Nederlands?
EINDE VAN DE VRAGENLIJST. DANK U VOOR UW MEDEWERKING!
90