Ethnic Minority Group’s Cultural Participation in Rotterdam Weiyan Tang

Ethnic Minority Group’s Participation in Rotterdam

1. Introduction1.1 BackgroundSimilar to other forms of active participation, recreation participation engrosses the engagement and exchange between and among individuals, groups, and families. Cultural participation usually involves the encounter with arts and heritage that culminate in healthy demeanor towards other people through increased individual confidence and capacity to work together. The main reason for cultural participation is socialization, which according to Jeannote (cited in Stanley, 2006) is highly linked to engagement in cultural activities. This participation can help to reduce the ethnic gap that often prevails among different ethnic groups, and especially those groups that have no, or share minimal, similarities. The result becomes improved interaction across diverse groups and increased the sense of belonging to a community (Aizlewood et al., 2006). Social gatherings promote the idea of a community, especially among marginalized populations.

Ethnic Minority Group’s Cultural Participation in Rotterdam
Weiyan Tang

In the Netherlands, cultural integration and participation have become a source of concern because many minority groups use the existing cultural resources. According to Van Wel et al. (2006), one of the major problems is the little understanding of the cultural preferences of the minorities. In most public debates, social problems associated with minority groups are defined as exclusion; this occurs in through lack of participation in the Dutch social systems.

Cultural participation pertinent to ethnic minority groups entails the involvement of minorities in high cultural activities such as visiting museums, concerts, festivals, and theatres, reading literature, and engagement in other forms of amateur art. In most societies, high cultural activities indicate elite social status, especially for the highly educated strata. Previous studies have identified a multiplicity of factors influencing cultural participation including education, income, and occupation, as well as command over the cultural resources (Bourdieu, 1977; Christin, 2012; De Graaf, De Graaf, & Kraaykamp, 2000; Dimaggio, 1982; Katz-Gerro, 2002). In so doing, each factor promotes socialization through different ways.
1.2 Research ProblemIn the Netherlands, the findings of the existing studies show that many youths lack interest in higher forms of art and culture (Kloosterman & Rath, 1996; Van Well et al., 2006). Most of the youth reserve their enthusiasm for the manifestations of mass and youth culture. Gender, education, and interest of family members in cultural activities have been shown to influence cultural participation in the country. However, additional research is required to reveal the effect of ethnicity on cultural participation in specific cities within the country; the initiative should ensue because differences could exist. Coincidentally, there is need to identify the existence of cultural participation trends among ethnic minorities in Rotterdam (Netherlands). In effect, such a technique would cater for the fact that estrangement continues to prevail among ethnic groups with different background orientation.
1.3 Motivation for the StudyIn 2000, the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science inaugurated a program to stimulate cultural participation among ethnic minorities; they hoped that such a notion would lead to enhanced social integration (Van Wel et al., 2006). The rapid changes in the country’s demographic and ethnic composition create the need to understand the extent to which ethnic minorities develop into an excluded second-class citizenry in reference to their participation levels in cultural activities.
Although Rotterdam is the second largest city in the Netherlands (one of the richest countries), the city ranks poorly in many indicators including employment, levels of education, and household income. According to Van Den Berg (2017), a large population in the city faces the risk of social exclusion, despite the existing policies. Rotterdam South poses a major challenge because of the concentration of many unemployed ethnic minorities. Considering the information about the city, it is important to investigate cultural participation among ethnic minorities in the city because this could inform policy about social inclusion programs.
1.4 Research ObjectivesThe study will seek to fulfill the following objectives.
Identify the differences in the participation in highbrow cultural activities among ethnic minorities and the Native Dutch Rotterdam residents.
Identify the factors determining cultural participation among ethnic minorities in Rotterdam
1.5 Research QuestionsThe study will seek to answer the following research questions.
What are the ordinary differences between Moroccan Dutch and other ethnic minority groups, namely Surinamese and Turkish, regarding highbrow cultural participation?

What kinds of background characteristics influence the tendency of individuals from ethnic minorities to show up highbrow cultural activities?
To what extent does education affect the participation in highbrow activities among members of an ethnic minority group in Rotterdam?
2. Theoretical FrameworkSeveral theoretical approaches have attempted to explain the negative association between cultural participation and ethnicity. Most of the explanations for the discrepancy emerge from American literature based on the influence of the racialized class-underclass paradigm (Aizlewood et al., 2006). Most studies categorize the theoretical perspectives of ethnic recreation into race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Lee (1972)’s sociocultural-meaning theory focuses on the people who engage in or visit the cultural or recreational facilities and the congruence of their behaviors. The identity theory is closely related to sociocultural-meaning theory (Karlis & Dawson, 1990). The theory posits that members of a specific ethnic group may deliberately choose to participate in cultural activities within their community and avoid mainstream cultural activities to preserve their ethnic identity.
The opportunity theory emerged in the late 70s, explaining the effect of resource proximity on cultural participation. The explanations from this theory are relevant to socioeconomic issues because most ethnic minority groups live in neighborhoods with limited cultural resources or recreational facilities (Johnson, 1997). These neighborhoods may lack adequate infrastructure to support the participation of the ethnic minorities in the mainstream cultural activities (Lindsay & Ogle, 1972). The theory posits that an increase in the cost of accessing the activities or facilities decreases the opportunities for the group.
The compensation theory relates to the socioeconomic explanations of leisure and cultural participation and exposes societal inequalities. Nevertheless, the theory suggests that ethnic minorities in the US, especially African Americans, over-participate in recreational and cultural activities to mitigate institutionalized racism (Johnson, 1997). However, the theory has a shortcoming in that it only focuses on recreational activities with little focus on highbrow cultural activities. In multicultural societies, the complementary theory has become highly relevant. According to the approach, an ethnic minority group creates its own organizations and associations to meet the needs that the host culture cannot meet (Karlis & Dawson, 1990). The approach allows the group to identify with its ethnic identity and remain active irrespective of the surrounding foreign culture.
The search for a formalized theory to explain the participation of ethnic minorities in cultural activities led to the emergence of the marginality-ethnicity paradigm. The marginality perspective derives from the opportunity theory. It posits that the differences in participation emanate from structural barriers such as the lack of transportation, discretionary funds, and inadequate information about the activities. On the other hand, the ethnicity paradigm suggests that ethnic minorities have unique cultural values that determine the activities in which they engage (Johnson, 1997). Specifically, the marginality-ethnicity paradigm posits that cultural participation among ethnic minorities relates to forces of discrimination and social inequality and the distinct norms of the group (Aizlewood et al., 2006). The paradigm has significant relevance in understanding the cultural participation of ethnic minorities in Rotterdam.
The status-seeking theory could also be applied in explaining the difference in cultural participation. The status-seeking theory considers lifestyles as the criteria for identifying and demarcating status groups or classes. In essence, the theory can explain the participation in highbrow cultural activities among ethnic minorities in the city. Ganzeboom (1982) posits that the involvement in cultural events echoes the eminence a person has or seeks in the social order. Traditionally, the engagement in highbrow cultural activities has been a standard norm for members of high-status groups and reflects honorable investments of knowledge and money. Lizardo and Skiles (2012) posited that mobilization and utilization of symbolic resources reflects a group’s cultural capital. Ethnic minorities may lack the capability to utilize the symbolic resources within their locality because of the social status associated with such resources. Moreover, the status-seeking theory can be enhanced by the information-seeking theory, which explains the legalization of class inequality in society due to the element of cultural capital. Unfortunately, this theory faces criticism because it is not explicit about the specific resources that constitute cultural capitalism. Instead, he just indicated that dominant cultures are deemed to have resources and habits that stimulate the labeling of these cultures as high-end cultures (Sullivan, 2002). The recognition of these cultural classes due to cultural capital makes the high-end cultures to have privileges and a competitive edge over their counterparts: the lower-end cultures.
Additionally, information processing theory focuses on the application of sophisticated approaches to research problems based on the combination of different theories. Floyd et al. (1994) proposed the class identification theory (closely related to marginality) as an explanation of differences in social class status and cultural participation. The theory posits that ethnic minorities and members of the dominant cultures occupying the same social position will express similar preferences and participate in similar cultural activities. This theory can be linked to the status-seeking and information processing theories where the strata that individuals hold are easily identified based on the resources they possess. Society has treated this segregation between individuals as a normal occurrence; thereby, propagating alienation of the ethnic minority cultures from cultural participation. Other theories of relevance in explaining the phenomenon include the class polarization and hierarchy stratification theory (Johnson, 1997). The theories are developed from the early literature regarding social inequalities and build on marginality as the explanation for low levels of cultural activities.
3. HypothesesTheoretical explanations of cultural participation among ethnic minorities reveal a multiplicity of explanations for the phenomenon. From a theoretical perspective, studies show that ethnic minorities face disadvantages in accessing cultural resources. However, the dynamics of cultural participation among ethnic minorities may differ based on other factors including gender, education, and income. According to the investigation questions and the theoretical background, the study will seek to test the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1: ethnic minorities in Rotterdam exhibit lower levels of participation in highbrow cultural activities.
Hypothesis 2: The level of education of non-western Rotterdammers affects their likelihood to participate in highbrow cultural activities.
Hypothesis 3: The level of income of non-western Rotterdammers affects their likelihood to participate in highbrow cultural activities.
Hypothesis 4: Gender affects non-western Rotterdammers participation in the highbrow cultural activities.
Methodology The study will apply a quantitative design in the analysis of the data. The Rotterdam Leisure Survey which will be examined in this research was administered on a random sample of Rotterdam inhabitants. The major themes contained in the survey questionnaire include a focus on free time. The dataset (VTO2015) will be analyzed using SPSS to enable the testing of the hypotheses.
A structured questionnaire was used gather sufficient data from some participants in Rotterdam. The data included socio-demographic questions including information on age, gender, social status, ethnicity and family status, as well as information on the frequency of attending different highbrow and lowbrow cultural activities. Highbrow cultural activities include visiting a theatre play, cabaret or stand-up comedy, opera or operetta, classical music concert, musical, choir performance, literary event, lecture on art or art history, debate, cultural festival, museum, gallery, archive, and historical or modern architecture buildings. Lowbrow activities include different types of concerts (pop, rock, urban, jazz/blues, world music, and fanfare), parties, dancing performances, watching a movie in the cinema, or art house. Respondents were first asked to check whether or not they have visited any of the listed activities; these questions provided the count of different activities attended in general and in Rotterdam. Then they were asked to provide the number of times they have visited any of the activities within the previous 12 months in general and in Rotterdam, which enabled for ratio scale data that was used in further analyses.
A random sample was drawn in the city Rotterdam, the Netherlands, which include autochthonous Rotterdammers and ethnic minority groups reside in Rotterdam, namely, Surinam, Antilles/Aruba, Cape Verde, Turkish, Moroccan, and other non-western immigrants. The total sample consisted of 2503 people living in Rotterdam, of which 1089 (43.5%) male and 1414 (56.5%) female. The ethnicity, age, income, education and family status structure are presented in Table 1.
Table 1
Socio-economic structure of the sample
Ethnicity
Autochthonous RotterdammersSurinam, Antilles/Aruba, Cape Verde Turkish Moroccan Other non-western N % N % N % N % N % 1559 62.3 370 14.8 107 4.3 59 2.4 408 16.3 Age category
13-24 25-44 45-64 65-75 76+
N % N % N % N % N %
432 17.3 814 32.5 752 30 287 11.47 218 8.71
Family status
single couple without kids couple with kids single parent N % N % N % N % 593 23.7 816 32.6 685 27.4 202 8.1 Income situation
no personal income paid job or self-employed (pre)pensioner disabled allowance welfare scholarship/study grant other
N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
236 9.43 1132 45.23 460 18.38 104 4.16 175 6.99 123 4.91 273 10.91
Education
no education primary or lower schooling intermediate schooling higher and pre-university schooling college or university N % N % N % N % N % 62 2.5 687 27.4 548 21.9 248 9.9 782 31.2 *N – number of respondents, % – percentage
For further analyses, some of the categories will be merged in order to enable for more trustworthy results. Different non-western minority groups will be merged into one, counting for 37.7% of the sample. Due to small percentages of respondents in the last two age categories, relative to other age categories, these will be merged that way having four age categories with the oldest being 65 years of age and older. This group counts for 20.2% of the sample. The ‘other’ category will be excluded from further analysis for the income variable. The percentages are low and it is not known what these ‘other’ categories include. Finally, the people who receive welfare, disabled assistance and some kind of scholarship will be merged into one group, since they are receiving funds from a third party. This group will account for 16.1% of the sample.
5. Results5.1 Descriptive AnalysisThe number of different high- and lowbrow cultural activities attended within the previous 12 months is shown in Graph 1. As can be seen, the autochthonous Rotterdammers visited more different highbrow than lowbrow cultural activities. Also, all minority groups except the one including Surinam, Antilles/Aruba, and Cape Verde people, reported visiting more different high- than lowbrow activities. On the other hand, Graph 1 shows that all groups in question attend more lowbrow than highbrow activities in general per year. Autochthonous Rotterdammers attend more highbrow activities per year in general than all minority groups, but when it comes to lowbrow activities, the group that attends the most on average is Surinam, Antilles/Aruba, and Cape Verde group (Graph 2).
center000
Graph1. Number of different cultural activities attended within previous 12 months
389890825500
Graph.2: Average cultural activities attendance per year in general

The situation does not differ much regarding the average attendance in the city of Rotterdam (Graph 3). Although the average attendance per year in Rotterdam is lower than in general, the relation among groups remains similar as in general.
center-444500

Graph 3: Average cultural activities attendance per year in Rotterdam
5.2 Differences AnalysesThe total count of different activities attended is presented in Table 2. As discussed in the sample section, all non-western minority groups will be considered as one group in further analysis of differences between autochthonous Rotterdammers and minorities. The χ2 test has shown that there are significant differences in total count of attendance to both high- (χ2 (12, N = 2503) = 82.603, p< .001) and lowbrow (χ2 (9, N = 2503) = 24.890, p<.001) activities.
Table 2
Total count of different activities attended
group lowbrow highbrow
autochthonous Rotterdammers2292 3894
non-western minorities 1324 1568
When it comes to the average number of attendances to different cultural activities per year, the only significant differences appear in regards to highbrow activities, while autochthonous Rotterdammers and minority groups do not differ in attending lowbrow activities, both in general and specifically in Rotterdam (Table 3). This indicates that our Hypothesis 1, that minority groups attend less highbrow cultural activities, is confirmed.
Table 3
Average attendance per year differences
autochthonous Rotterdammersnon-western minorities
M SD M SD
in general highbrow
t(2300)=5.459, p<.000 .62 1.12 .38 .85
lowbrow
t(2278)= -.793, p>.05 .79 1.29 .85 1.84
in Rotterdam highbrow
t(2300)=3.024, p<.01 .34 .70 .25 .65
lowbrow
t(2278)= -1.283, p>.05 .58 1.05 .64 1.17
Comparisons among minority groups also reveal differences between other non-western group and Surinam, Antilles/Aruba, Cape Verde group in both general attendances per year and attendance to lowbrow cultural events in Rotterdam. The means for each group could be observed in graphs 2 and 3, while the ANOVA results are presented in Table 4.
Table 4
ANOVA results for comparisons of average attendance per year among minority groups
F dfp
in general highbrow 1.338 3, 874 .261
lowbrow 3.001 3, 866 .030
in Rotterdam highbrow .448 3, 874 .719
lowbrow 4.114 3, 886 .007
For testing hypothesis 2, we applied the analysis of variance to compare respondents of non-western minority groups of different levels of education. The ANOVA results (Table 5) have shown that there are significant differences in average attendance per year across both highbrow and lowbrow activities both in Rotterdam and in general. Schefe’s post-hoc indicated that significant differences are between the group of people of the highest educational level (university or college) and all other groups when it comes to highbrow activities. The average attendance of lowbrow activities per year of people with intermediate education level is significantly higher than one of the other groups. Also, the most highly educated respondents attend lowbrow cultural events significantly more often than those with no education. However, this finding should be interpreted with precaution since the percentage of respondents with no education is rather low.
Table 5
ANOVA results for comparisons of average attendance per year among minority groups regarding the level of education
education level in general in Rotterdam
highbrow
F(4, 824) = 16.101, p<.001 lowbrow
F(4, 817) = 5.931, p<.001 highbrow
F(4, 824) = 7.221, p<.001 lowbrow
F(4, 817) = 7.221, p<.001
M SD M SD M SD M SD
no education .12 .59 .23 .78 .10 .46 .10 .30
primary or lower schooling .22 .42 .54 .91 .17 .36 .44 .80
intermediate schooling .22 .47 1.20 3.20 .20 .34 .88 1.77
higher and pre-university schooling .38 .57 .98 1.23 .24 .33 .76 1.03
college or university .78 1.47 1.07 1.32 .46 1.16 .78 1.02
Income status also affects the average attendance to both high- and lowbrow activities (Table 6). The post-hoc tests did not show any specific differences, which indicate tendencies. People who work and earn money attend more lowbrow activities than other income groups. When it comes to highbrow activities, non-western minority members with no income and those who are employed attend more activities than the other two groups.
Table 6
ANOVA results for comparisons of average attendance per year among minority groups regarding income status
income status in general in Rotterdam
highbrow
F(3, 779) = 3.870, p<.01 lowbrow
F(3, 774) = 4.235, p<.01 highbrow
F(3, 779) = 1.260, p<.05 lowbrow
F(3, 774) = 6.833, p<.001
M SD M SD M SD M SD
no personal income .47 1.02 .74 .97 .32 .73 .57 .85
paid job or self-employed .45 .98 1.10 2.50 .31 .85 .84 1.49
pre-pensioner .23 .37 .30 .57 .18 .30 .24 .47
disabled allowance/welfare/scholarship .25 .54 .72 1.42 .16 .33 .51 .96
The last hypothesis, that gender causes differences in attending different cultural activities was not confirmed. The last hypothesis, that there is a direct effect of gender on differences in attending different cultural activities, was not confirmed. The results of t-test comparisons are presented in Table 7.
Table 7
t-test results for gender comparisons among non-western minorities
t dfp
in general highbrow -1.500 876 .134
lowbrow -.759 868 .448
in Rotterdam highbrow -1.660 876 .097
lowbrow .310 868 .756
5.3Regression AnalysesTwo linear regression analyses were performed in order to test models for predicting average attendance per year to cultural events, of non-western minority groups, in Rotterdam. The independent variables included in the model were gender, income status, level of education and age group. The latter three variables were dummy-coded since they are all categorical with several levels. Outcome variables were average attendance per year in Rotterdam to highbrow and lowbrow events. The first model for predicting attendance to highbrow activities is significant (F(12, 749) = 2.954, p<.000), but it only explains 4.6% of the variance. As could be seen from Table 8, the significant predictor is no personal income status with the positive beta, thus meaning that non-western minority groups’ members of income status tend to attend more highbrow activities in Rotterdam. The college or university level of education has marginal significance, also with the positive beta, indicating a tendency of the most highly educated members to attend more highbrow activities. The reference categories are ‘primary or lower schooling’ and age 25-44.
Table 8
Linear regression results for predicting average attendance to highbrow cultural activities in Rotterdam (non-western minorities)
Predictor Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients p
B Beta Gender .052 .038 .293
No education -.042 -.015 .812
Intermediate education .038 .024 .805
Higher education .068 .031 .678
College or university .265 .169 .088
Age 13-24 -.127 -.077 .096
Age 45-64 -.042 -.028 .499
Age 65+ -.040 -.017 .838
No income .210 .118 .013
Paid work .112 .082 .095
(pre)pensioner .069 .029 .725
disabled allowance/welfare/scholarship .166 .063 .171
On the other hand, the situation changes when it comes to predicting attendance to lowbrow cultural events. The model remains significant (F (12, 744) = 5.907, p<.000) and explains 8.8% of the variance, but this time significant unique predictors are age 13-24 and paid work (Table 9). This indicates that those non-western minority members in Rotterdam who are between 13 and 34 and those who are (self)employed tend to attend more lowbrow cultural activities in this city. Attention should also be paid to those predictors of border significance, indicating that those that are funded by third parties have a tendency to attend more of these events, while those aged 45-64 attend these activities less frequently. The reference categories were ‘lower schooling’ and age 25-44.
Table 9
Linear regression results for predicting average attendance to lowbrow cultural activities in Rotterdam (non-western minorities)
Predictor Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients p
B Beta Gender -.071 -.029 .410
No education -.168 -.036 .583
Intermediate education .418 .149 .119
Higher education .168 .043 .554
College or university .234 .085 .383
Age 13-24 .317 .110 .016
Age 45-64 -.195 -.073 .070
Age 65+ -.167 -.039 .634
No income .124 .039 .396
Paid work .375 .155 .001
(pre)pensioner .050 .012 .886
disabled allowance/welfare/scholarship .395 .086 .059
6. Limitations and Further Recommendations Before we can draw conclusions, there are some limitations must be addressed. Firstly, the percentage of the sample including members of non-western minority groups should be increased, especially including more Moroccan people, in order to have a clearer picture on fine differences among these groups. A larger sample size is ideal for other reasons such as distinction of gender-related classification. The study focused on the heterosexual classification of humans, female and male. As a matter of fact, the research sought to use this criterion because of its simplicity. Nonetheless, future research should check how sexual orientation affects the ability of people to participate in cultural activities. Moreover, the questionnaire consists of a few closed questions, which could affect the misleading numbers in the analysis (See Table 2.; That was the total number of times the participants answered Yes/No to the closed questions like “Have you been to the following activities….” Moreover, the sample perimeters failed to cater for other important factors popular in the 21st century. People can watch movies and enjoy their time at home as opposed to meeting in theatres and other outdoor activities. Technology makes people practice cultural activities without including others. For instance, cultural shows are available through televisions and the cyberspace. Technology plays a huge role in reducing the time people send together on a personal level. Future research should include technological advance as one of the factors affecting the attendance to highbrow and lowbrow activities.
Unfortunately, the findings of the research are limited to feedback from respondents who were willing to participate and deadlines. The quota covered failed to include more people because of the issue of access. The design of the research consisted of naturalistic techniques have researchers personalized the questionnaires. The procedure was mainly impacted evaluation and result oriented. In so doing, the peripheral factors affecting the authenticity of the response was neglected. Future research should focus on studying the verbal feedback as well as body language and behavior. Additionally, the research methodology design applied physical interviews which limited the sample size. An important future recommendation would include web-based surveys through emails and social sites as a means of including more participants. Virtual techniques of gathering information reach out to more people and reduce the cost of fieldwork. Regrettably, the challenge of planning all activities to fit a particular period or before the academic deadline affects the study. Most academics such as students of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) take years to familiarize with their topic and write their final thesis. Such a period of time allows for an adequate understanding of the target group and other preliminary research endeavors. This research experienced longitudinal effects (time challenges) and so most of the information deduced is limited to the participants. In effect, the research functioned as an explanatory and an exploratory initiative. A future study of the topic should take more time to understand the intricate societal trends.
7. ConclusionThe notion of cultural participation stems from the need to socialize and be valued as a human. Rotterdam is an area with rich cultural sites and activities owing to the various communities present. Cultural activities such as watching films in the cinema and celebrating different national festivals are a vital element of any society. The research initiative focuses on the challenges facing minority groups and their need to enjoy cultural heritage. Prior research findings showed that some cultural activities are popular among specific social classes. In so doing, factors such as education, income, and occupation affect whether a person attends some functions and the frequency of attendance. The assumption being that minority groups rarely participate in highbrow activities while the wealthy majority are more inclined to attend. The results showed that all groups in Rotterdam prefer attending lowbrow activities as opposed to highbrow. The difference came when the researchers focused on the highbrow activities; Autochthonous groups in Rotterdam attend more highbrow activities than the minority groups. Highbrow activities focus on the classical conservative means of enjoyment such as visiting museums, gallery or watching a theatre play. The lowbrow section is mostly parties, concerts, dancing, and watching movies. The study showed that the participation in these activities increased with the level of education. However, the level of education may be tied to the employment rates. People with jobs tend to have more disposable income and thus, more likely to attend such activities.
Furthermore, the attendance of activities correlates with the about of time residents have. In effect, non-western minority groups aged below 34 years spend more time in lowbrow activities. Those who are 45-64 years of age have a low attendance to such activities. Availability of time and age are among the factors affecting whether a person chooses to participate in social activities. The same approach can also explain why young people engage in outdoor activities. A young adult below the age of 34 years has more disposable income and fewer responsibilities compared to the older generation. If the person is not working, they probably have a parent or guardian who provides for their needs. All these scenarios show that ethnicity may have nothing or very little to do with cultural participation. Age and financial status are the vital factors to consider when studying the trend. The Dutch social system creates a social gap but does not limit the attendance directly. Consequently, the ability to attend depends on individual factors as opposed to ethnic barriers. On the other hand, a person could argue that socioeconomic segregation rooted in education, income, and social status creates the seclusion from cultural activities. A person from marginalized minority group faces huge barriers to education and employment opportunities. As a result, they lack the time and resources needed to attend social activities. On the other hand, those from wealthy families enjoy the education and job opportunities available through the guidance of influential relatives. These people are able to attend both highbrow and lowbrow events with minimum effort.
Alternatively, the seclusion of the minority in certain events may be explored through theoretical terms. The availability of certain amenities near the residential areas affects the attendance. As a matter of fact, the opportunity theory discussed early suggests attendance in some activities depends on its proximity to the residents. People have a harder time traveling for long distances to participate in social activities; traveling is unlikely for those with jobs and responsibilities. On the other hand, minority groups are more likely to participate in social events as a means of mitigating the effects of institutionalized racism. The compensation theory could explain why minority groups prefer lowbrow activities. They seek to meet and strengthen their resolve in life despite the social hurdles hovering around them. Similarly, the status-seeking theory also coincides with the compensation theory as different social groups create nonverbal seclusion rules to protect their status. All these theories expose different angles to the issue of seclusion and the need for more integration in Rotterdam. Van Den Berg (2017) talks about the challenge of social segregation as the majority of the minority are unemployed. People who lack enough resources to cater for their basic needs (food, shelter, and clothing) are less likely to participate in social events. They spend their days struggling to survive in a hostile environment. Also, the findings showed that increased responsibility and limited disposable income reduces the number of people attending these activities. The local authorities in Rotterdam should create policies which increase employment among minority groups. The initiative could target companies or avail funds for minority members to open their own businesses (Khan, 2018). Contrariwise, the government can implement education policies which ensure all children get quality education irrespective of ethnicity.

ReferencesAizlewood, A., Bevelander, P., & Pendakur, R. (2006). Recreational participation among ethnic minorities and immigrants in Canada and the Netherlands. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 4(3), 1-32.
Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. London: Tavistock, 178.
Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American journal of political science, 999-1023.Christin, A. (2012). Gender and highbrow cultural participation in the United States. Poetics, 40(5), 423-443.
De Graaf, N. D., De Graaf, P. M., & Kraaykamp, G. (2000). Parental cultural capital and educational attainment in the Netherlands: A refinement of the cultural capital perspective. Sociology of education, 92-111.DiMaggio, P. (1982). Cultural capital and school success: The impact of status culture participation on the grades of US high school students. American sociological review, 189-201.Floyd, M. R., Shinew, K. J., McGuire, F. A., & Noe, F. P. (1994). Race, class, and leisure activity preferences: Marginality and ethnicity revisited. Journal of leisure research, 26(2), 158.Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity (No. D10 301 c. 1/c. 2). Free Press Paperbacks.
Ganzeboom, H. (1982). Explaining differential participation in high-cultural activities: a confrontation of information-processing and status-seeking theories. Theoretical models and empirical analyses, 186-205.Johnson, C. Y. (1997). Theoretical perspectives of ethnicity and outdoor recreation: a review and synthesis of African-American and European-American participation (Vol. 11). US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.Karlis, G., & Dawson, D. (1990). Ethnic maintenance and recreation: a case study. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 15(2), 85-99.
Katz-Gerro, T. (2002). Highbrow cultural consumption and class distinction in Italy, Israel, West Germany, Sweden, and the United States. Social Forces, 81(1), 207-229.
Khan, O. (2018). How The Next Government Can Reduce Racial Inequality. Runnymede Trust. Retrieved 3 May 2015, from https://www.runnymedetrust.org/blog/how-the-next-government-can-reduce-racial-inequality
Kloosterman, R., & Rath, J. C. (1996). Kunst en Populaire cultuur. Een onontgonnen onderzoeksterrein. Migrantenstudies, 12(4), 177-181.
Lee, R. G. (1972). The social definition of outdoor recreation places. Social behavior, natural resources, and the environment, 68-84.Lindsay, J. J., & Ogle, R. A. (1972). Socioeconomic patterns of outdoor recreation use near urban areas. Journal of Leisure Research, 4(1), 19.Lizardo, O., & Skiles, S. (2012). Reconceptualizing and theorizing “omnivorousness” genetic and relational mechanisms. Sociological Theory, 30(4), 263-282.
Stanley, D. (2006). Introduction: The social effects of culture. Canadian Journal of Communication, 31(1). Retrieved from http://cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/1744/1856.Sullivan, A. (2002). Bourdie and education: How useful; is Bourdieu’s theory for researchers. The Netherlands Journal of Social Sciences, 35(2), 144-166.
Odé, A. W. M. (2002). Ethnic-cultural and socio-economic integration in the Netherlands: a comparative study of Mediterranean and Caribbean minority groups. Uitgeverij Van Gorcum.
Van Den Berg, L. (2017). European Cities in the Knowledge Economy: The Cases of Amsterdam, Dortmund, Eindhoven, Helsinki, Manchester, Munich, M? nster, Rotterdam, and Zaragoza. Routledge.
Van Wel, F., Couwenbergh-Soeterboek, N., Couwenbergh, C., Ter Bogt, T., & Raaijmakers, Q. (2006). Ethnicity, youth cultural participation, and cultural reproduction in the Netherlands. Poetics, 34(1), 65-82.
Wilcox, S., Castro, C., King, A. C., Housemann, R., & Brownson, R. C. (2000). Determinants of leisure time physical activity in rural compared with urban older and ethnically diverse women in the United States. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 54(9), 667-672.