Göçmenlerin Entegrasyonuna İlişkin Olarak Siyasi Liderler ve Ev Sahibi Topluluk Üyeleri Arasındaki Etkileşimlerin Politik Psikolojisi

Abstract

Günümüzde pek çok ülkede ortaya çıkan göç sorunu, ülkelerin; sosyal, kültürel ve ekonomik yapılarını etkilemektedir. Bundan dolayı, ülkeler, bu sorunu çözmeye yönelik politikalar geliştirmektedir. Geliştirilen bu politikaların başında da gruplar arası olumlu temasları hedefleyen entegrasyon politikaları gelmektedir. Entegrasyon politikalarıyla birlikte göçmenler ve ev sahibi topluluk üyeleri arasında sosyal, kültürel ve ekonomik uyum sağlanabilmektedir. Fakat, ev sahibi toplumda yürütülen siyasi liderlik süreci bu uyumu doğrudan veya dolaylı bir şekilde etkileyebilmektedir. Nitekim, bu çalışmanın amacı, göçmenlere yönelik oluşan tutumlarda siyasi liderler ile ev sahibi topluluk üyeleri arasındaki etkileşimlerin önemini ortaya koyup; göçmenlerin entegrasyonu noktasında bu etkileşimlerin rolünü kuramsal olarak incelemektir. Bu noktada, lider ve takipçileri arasında dinamik bir ilişki öne süren kimlik liderlik modeli ve grup süreçleri önemli olmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, siyasi liderlerin entegrasyon sürecini etkilediğini gösteren çalışmaların olduğunu ama bu çalışmaların teorik çerçevelerinin yeterince açık olmadığını söyleyebiliriz. Yine, siyasi liderlerin, göçmenleri genel olarak grup çıkarı ve grup normu çerçevesinde değerlendirdiğini ve ev sahibi topluluk üyelerini bu grup süreçleri üzerinden etkilediklerini gözlemledik. Bu noktada, siyasi liderlerin, grup çıkarına ilişkin olarak ekonomik tehditleri ön plana aldıklarını; grup normuna ilişkin olarak da daha çok sembolik ve kimlik düzeyindeki tehditleri ön plana aldıklarını ortaya koyduk. Dolayısıyla, siyasi liderlerin entegrasyon sürecini etkilediğini, olumlu bir entegrasyon süreci için kimlik liderliğin önemli olduğunu; kimlik liderlik sürecine uygun davranan siyasi liderlerin olumlu bir entegrasyonun sağlanmasında daha fazla etkili olduğunu söyleyebiliriz.

Keywords

• Siyasi liderlik
• kimlik liderlik
• grup süreçleri
• entegrasyon
• göçmenler

The Political Psychology of Interactions between Political Leaders and Host Community Members

Abstract

The migration issue that has arisen in many countries today impacts the social, cultural, and economic structures of those countries. For this reason, countries are developing policies aimed at solving this issue. These developed policies are integration policies that target positive intergroup contacts. With integration policies, social, cultural, and economic cohesion can be achieved between migrants and host community members. However, the political leadership process conducted by the host society can directly or indirectly affect this harmony. Indeed, the aim of this study is to highlight the importance of interactions between political leaders and members of the host community in shaping attitudes towards immigrants, and to theoretically examine the role of these interactions in the integration of immigrants. At this point, the identity leadership model and group processes become important. There are studies indicating that political leaders affect the integration process, but the theoretical frameworks of these studies are not sufficiently clear. We have observed that political leaders assess immigrants generally within the framework of group interests and group norms, influencing members of the host community through these group processes. At this point, we have revealed that political leaders emphasize economic threats in relation to group interests, while they highlight more symbolic and identity-level threats concerning group norms. Therefore, we can say that political leaders affect the integration process, that identity leadership is important for a positive integration process, and that political leaders who behave in accordance with the identity leadership process are more effective in ensuring a positive integration.

Keywords

• Political leadership
• identity leadership
• group processes
• integration
• immigrants

References

1. Akfırat, S.(2017). Kimlik liderlik ölçeği’nin türkçe formunun psikometrik özelliklerinin üniversite öğrenci örnekleminde incelenmesi. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 51-65.
2. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied psychology, 46(1), 5-34.
3. Betz, H.-G. & Johnson, C. (2004). Against the current – stemming the tide: The nostalgic ideology of the contemporary radical populist right. Journal of Political Ideologies 9(3): 311–327.
4. Billig, M. ve Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 27-52.
5. Bischoff, C. S. (2020). New Parties: Game Changers or ‘Much Ado About Nothing'?. Scandinavian Political Studies, 43(2), 80-89.
6. Callens, M. S. ve Meuleman, B. (2017). Do integration policies relate to economic and cultural threat perceptions? A comparative study in Europe. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 58(5), 367-391.
7. Colantone, I. ve Stanig, P. (2019). The surge of economic nationalism in Western Europe. Journal of economic perspectives, 33(4), 128-151.
8. Çakınberk, A. ve Demirel, E. T. (2010). Örgütsel Bağlılığın Belirleyicisi Olarak Liderlik: Sağlık Çalışanları Örneği. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, (24), 103-119.

9. Dancygier, R. M. ve Donnelly, M. J. (2013). Sectoral economies, economic contexts, and attitudes toward immigration. The journal of politics, 75(1), 17-35.
10. De Cremer, D. ve Van Vugt, M. (2002). Intergroup and intragroup aspects of leadership in social dilemmas: A relational model of cooperation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 126-136.
11. Fielding, K. S. ve Hogg, M. A. (1997). Social identity, self-categorization, and leadership: A field study of small interactive groups. Group dynamics: Theory, research, and practice, 1(1), 39.
12. Figgou, L. (2016). Constructions of ‘illegal’immigration and entitlement to citizenship: Debating an immigration law in Greece. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 26(2), 150-163.
13. Foddy, M., Platow, M. J. ve Yamagishi, T. (2009). Group-based trust in strangers: The role of stereotypes and expectations. Psychological Science, 20(4), 419-422.
14. Giessner, S. R., van Knippenberg, D. L. ve Sleebos, E. (2008). License to fail? How leader group prototypicality moderates the effects of leader performance on perceptions of leadership effectiveness. ERIM Report Series Reference No. ERS-2008-066-ORG.
15. Goodman, S. W. (2015). Conceptualizing and measuring citizenship and integration policy: Past lessons and new approaches. Comparative Political Studies, 48(14), 1905-1941.
16. Haslam, S.A., Reicher, S.D. ve Platow, M.J. (2011). The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence and power. London: Psychology Press.
17. Haslam, S. A., Steffens, N. K., Reicher, S. D. ve Bentley, S. V. (2021). Identity leadership in a crisis: A 5R framework for learning from responses to COVID‐19. Social Issues and Policy Review, 15(1), 35-83.
18. Hewstone, M. (2015). Consequences of diversity for social cohesion and prejudice: The missing dimension of intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 71(2), 417-438.
19. International organization for migration.(2024, 7 Mayıs). World Migration Report 2024. 8 Ekim 2025 tarihinde https://worldmigrationreport.iom.int/ .
20. Örücü, E. ve Teker, S. K. (2014). Hastanelerde Liderlik ve Örgütsel Bağlılık Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi: Sağlık Sektöründe Bir Araştırma. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(24), 73-90.
21. Jay, S., Batruch, A., Jetten, J., McGarty, C. ve Muldoon, O. T. (2019). Economic inequality and the rise of far‐right populism: A social psychological analysis. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 418-428.
22. Ko, J. ve Choi, S. W. (2022). Nationalism and immigration control. Nations and Nationalism, 28(1), 12-30.
23. Kunst, J. R., Dovidio, J. F. ve Thomsen, L. (2019). Fusion with political leaders predicts willingness to persecute immigrants and political opponents. Nature human behaviour, 3(11), 1180-1189.
24. Makashvili, A., Vardanashvili, I. ve Javakhishvili, N. (2018). Testing intergroup threat theory: Realistic and symbolic threats, religiosity and gender as predictors of prejudice. Europe's journal of psychology, 14(2), 464.
25. Massetti, E. (2015). Mainstream parties and the politics of immigration in Italy: A structural advantage for the right or a missed opportunity for the left?. Acta Politica, 50(4), 486-505.
26. Mols, F. ve Jetten, J. (2016). Explaining the appeal of populist right‐wing parties in times of economic prosperity. Political Psychology, 37(2), 275-292.
27. Obaidi, M., Kunst, J., Ozer, S. ve Kimel, S. Y. (2022). The “Great Replacement” conspiracy: How the perceived ousting of Whites can evoke violent extremism and Islamophobia. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(7), 1675-1695.
28. Pan, W. F. (2023). The effect of populism on high-skilled migration: Evidence from inventors. European Journal of Political Economy, 79, 102447.
29. Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup conytact effects on prejudice. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 23(2), 173-185.
30. Platow, M.J., Haslam, S.A., Reicher, S.D. ve Steffens, N.K. (2015) There is no leadership if no-one follows: why leadership is necessarily a group process. International Coaching Psychology Review, 10, 20–37.
31. Platow, M. J. ve van Knippenberg, D. (2001). A social identity analysis of leadership endorsement: The effects of leader ingroup prototypicality and distributive intergroup fairness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(11), 1508-1519.
32. Portice, J. ve Reicher, S. (2018). Arguments for European disintegration: A mobilization analysis of anti‐immigration speeches by UK political leaders. Political Psychology, 39(6), 1357-1372.
33. Reicher, S. D., Haslam, S. A. ve Platow, M. J. (2018). Shared social identity in leadership. Current opinion in Psychology, 23, 129-133.
34. Schlueter, E., Meuleman, B. ve Davidov, E. (2013). Immigrant integration policies and perceived group threat: A multilevel study of 27 Western and Eastern European countries. Social science research, 42(3), 670-682.
35. Shayegh, J., Storey, L., Turner, R. N. ve Barry, J. (2022). A social identity approach to how elite outgroups are invoked by politicians and the media in nativist populism. Political Psychology, 43(6), 1009-1025.
36. Sputnik. (2020, 5 Nisan). Yeni Zelanda Başbakanı’ndan Kovid-19 önlemlerine uymayanlara: En kibar tabirle aptallar. 13 Ekim 2025 tarihinde https://anlatilaninotesi.com.tr/20200405/yeni-zelanda-basbakanindan-kovid-19-onlemlerine-uymayanlara-en-kibar-tabirle-aptallar-1041758191.html .
37. Stacey, M., Carbone-López, K. ve Rosenfeld, R. (2011). Demographic change and ethnically motivated crime: The impact of immigration on anti-Hispanic hate crime in the United States. Journal of contemporary criminal justice, 27(3), 278-298.
38. Steffens, N.K., Haslam, S.A., Reicher, S.D., Platow, M.J., Fransen, K., Yang, J., Ryan, M.K., Jetten, J., Peters, K. ve Boen, F. (2014). Leadership as social identity management: Introducing the Identity Leadership Inventory (ILI) to assess and validate a four- dimensional model. The Leadership Quarterly, 25, 1001-1024.
39. Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Ryan, M. K. ve Kessler, T. (2013). Leader performance and prototypicality: Their inter‐relationship and impact on leaders' identity entrepreneurship. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(7), 606-613.
40. Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Information (International Social Science Council), 13(2), 65-93.
41. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M., Oakes, P., Reicher, S. ve Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94 (6) 1514-1516.
42. Verkuyten, M. (2013). Justifying discrimination against Muslim immigrants: Out‐group ideology and the five‐step social identity model. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(2), 345-360.