Globalization Effects on Immigration and Culture - Essay Example

Introduction Immigration is a way that local communities become globalized. It is a method of connecting communities externally and also transforms them from within as immigration draws on the global culture and integrates in into the local culture. Traditional consideration of immigration was that it was a process that needed to maintain local and national identities, by way of excluding or completely absorbing people from other states and cultures (Robinson, 2001). During the1990s it was realized that "multicultural citizenship" was a more correct interpretation of the immigrant experience. As liberal-communitarian discourse began to highlight issues of social justice, and changed the orientation of key debates to determine the type of recognition that liberal democracies should afford cultural minority groups, it also determined how best to direct social cohesion and a global community. Increasingly, the rights of groups such as immigrants (transnationals) came to the forefront of sociological discourse, and the "politics of identity" were at one time seen as constraining the solidarity of the welcoming states sense of citizenship and democracy. New ways of understanding the world were emerging (Mills & Wright, 1992; Robinson, 2001). However, a contrasting viewpoint approached globalization as a positive change in the concept of democracy, and a positive end to the nation-state. At the same time multiculturalists advocated that minority rights were of importance and integrationists lobbied for solidarity of values and national aspirations, regardless of a citizen being an immigrant or a person born into the state. The argument focused on the concept of national identities being outdated. This approach stated that states will become less able to influence and regulate its immigrants, and in turn the groups will cease to consider themselves, and to be viewed as disadvantaged minority groups. This paper will review the concepts of culture and immigration with regard to public boundaries and cultural adaption, using Anderson's (2006) thesis as a filter to reinterpret the immigration issue in the 21st century. Firstly, the effects of globalization on immigration and culture shall be presented. Secondly, social being in the forms of private and background cultures will be discussed. Next, the effect of immigrant culture on the socialization of children will be outlined. Finally a conclusion shall synthesize the main points and demonstrate that culture and immigration are undergoing change in the new millennium. Globalization Effects on Immigration and Culture Current discourse on immigration notes that closed societies and the concept of a homogenized culture within a nation will limit a state's ability to compete in global markets, or to draw capital from foreign investment. This is because a global marketplace constrains state governments in their implanting regulatory economic policies, advocating instead, negotiated trade agreements that take consideration of many nations. Following the Cold-War and the fragmentation of many Central and Eastern nations, there has been an increase in attempts to constrain traditional approaches to trade and politics, which promoted sovereignty, and a shift toward flexible boarders and more collaborative decision making among states. The rapid advances in technology have provided wider access to information, skills and competencies, as well as decreased the cost of travel, which in turn has aided immigration as an option for seeking work, stable family life, or just general well-being. Hence, the boundaries between "immigrant" and "native" have become blurred globally. In turn this breakdown of boundaries has promoted new ways of celebrating and practicing culture. A transational sphere of society is created that extends and limits opportunities for immigrants (Smith, 2003). This occurs through the establishment of "diasporic membership" new political participation for immigrants within their receiving nation and their home state. The flexible "nationality" of immigrants creates and institutionalizes a diasphoirc sphere. Recently, home states have reconfigured their perceptions of immigrants, to what Smith refers to as "the pochos strategy" (p. 728) which seeks to promote its immigrants as part of the state's "global nation". In turn, post-modern immigration has been directly affecting the democratization of its home state, as the home nation is integrated more closely with foreign nations. Cultivation of closer relationships with its nationals abroad functions to strengthen the bonds between the home and receiving states, as well as the bonds between immigrants and their home nation, and their receiving nation. Public and Background Cultures Baubock (2001) speaks of "public culture" (p. 1651) of immigrant societies, and how it is self-transformative. The public culture is one of norms and values that align all citizens. Immigrants can endorse the state's citizenship principles and make an effort to learn the language of the receiving country. Baubock contends that the concept of public culture is very different to that of the traditional view of culture, which characterizes itself with regard to integration and a common social framework that is supported by its political institutions. This can be aligned with Anderson's theory (2006) of "cultural adaption" (p. 171), where in a social group modifies its values and behaviors, or cultural practices, by way of social construction to be able to function within a new environment (Levy, 2000; Mauss, 1985). A set of informal rules are constructed within the social group that governs interpersonal public behavior. It is also general knowledge that if the rules are not adhered to, penalties will ensue, such as being treated as a "foreigner", culturally stereotyped or viewed as having lesser intelligence than the "natives" by virtue of their behavior being "different". As such, for many immigrants practice of the public culture may in fact be in conflict with their true feelings, and they practice public culture as a defense against being viewed as an "other" and so treated differently. Overall, public culture could be considered as necessary for immigrants to be able to function and be included in wider society. It is a necessary code for operating in wider society. Similar to Anderson's argument, the key element of the code is the issue of respect, or of being "treated right" and being granted the deference which will maintain one's dignity as a social being. Public culture, therefore, has four primary functions; 1) To provide a standardized form of communication among within societies; 2) To provide collective memories and therefore identity; 3) To provide a set of explicit and implicit beliefs, values, norms and attitudes that modulate political conflict and decision making; 4) To provide a set of implicit norms and ways of behaving which are shared across the different communities that make up a society. These four functions make up the linguistic, historical, political, and civil culture of a state (Baubock, 2001). However, religious affiliation and geographic origins cannot be chosen or learnt, and it is these factors which can create a sense of separateness from the "natives" of the receiving state, and can foster an approach which seeks to exclude those "others" who do not align with their cultural beliefs and values. This is what is termed by Baubock as the "background culture" of a social group of immigrants. Rawls (1993) theory would argue that the non-public or background culture would ultimately be the defining culture, although it tends not to be the most suitable basis on which to build a political alignment which a democratic society expects, through the commitment for a unified view amongst its varied immigrant and native population. Background culture becomes important as citizenship is viewed as the conversion from traditional values to those that are socially acceptable to the receiving nation. Baubock points out that the state's institutions are not the dominant factors which shape the culture of a civil society. Rather, state institutions are in competition with economic markets and kinship systems, as well as other less highlighted social systems. Post-modern market economies provide dynamic, volatile and highly differentiated forms of lifestyles and experiences, as well as a consumer culture. The alternate to this is the family institution as the primary place of socialization for children. The family reproduces the longstanding cultural practices of class/caste, regional, ethnic and religious communities. Consumer culture has spread by way of globalization beyond the boarders of industrialized states, and has resulted in the intergenerational reproduction of numerous cultural communities has led all post-modern societies to be multicultural to some extent. For some immigrants the consumer culture of industrialized societies is abhorred, and their children are socialized not so much in public culture, but in the background culture. The environment in which the families live is seen as a source of constant threats to one's dignity, cultural beliefs and values (Kymlicka & Norman, 2000). The additional demands of parenthood in a nation where extended family may not be present, or social ties from the home state are difficult to maintain within an immigrant community, can as in Anderson's example, make it difficult for parents to reconcile their needs with those of their children. As such, the background culture is adamantly used to socialize their children as the normative way. The home state traditional cultural values are maintained as a reference point against which one's own behavior, and that of others is judged according to the home culture's values. The issue of respect aligns substantially with Anderson's Code of the Street thesis, in which immigrant families that cultivate their dominant background culture, the way in which they deserve respect can become more difficult, uncertain and problematic. For example, going to the hospital may necessitate interaction of a male Muslim with a female doctor, which rubs against traditional beliefs and norms of women having a subservient role in society. However, for the male to access medical treatment he must somehow negotiate interactions with a non-Muslim female professional who is likely to "break" many of his traditional taboos, such as questioning him directly, giving instructions, asking personal questions, and looking him in the eye. The man's concern for his respect and dignity become anxious in such an unpredictable environment of interpersonal negotiation. The code of traditional norms and values as represented in the background culture is also a cultural adaption to a lack of faith in the civil system of the receiving nation. Public servants may be seen as symbolizing the dominant white society that has a general disregard for traditional values and beliefs of minority immigrant communities. For example, the female non-Muslim doctor may not respond with timeliness and an attitude that the male Muslim is accustomed to in his home state. As such, she may be perceived as "not caring" about immigrant minorities. Additionally, the consumer culture of industrialized nations is often pointed to as the source of a perceived non-caring attitude of the "natives" and is actively dissuaded by the background culture. Similar to Anderson's thesis, where the influence of civil society ends and personal responsibility begins for one's ability to function in society is the degree of commitment to the background culture. The Socialization of Immigrant Children Regardless of the socialization of immigrant children into public culture or background culture, they observe the goings-on and learn the lessons of what is "right", as described by Anderson. Social modeling means that the children soon learn that the way to survive as an immigrant is to portray oneself to social "others" by way of public culture, and be accepted, or to risk social conflict and to promote background culture as the dominant way of experiencing the world. With respect to the practice of public culture, the child may learn that it is better to put aside one's concern for traditional values and norms when in the presence of "natives" so as not to draw attention to one's self and to expose oneself as being "ignorant" or a "foreigner". Whereas those brought up to advocate background culture, it may be necessary to learn quickly to take offense at the lack of respect the natives have for one's culture. Similar to Anderson's thesis when public and background children come together there is a social shuffle as the children and youth determine where it is they fit within an immigrant social group. The most likely place for this to occur is within the school environment. This can be a source of tension for children, much as Anderson's "decent" and "street" children experience anxiety as they realize that they must choose an orientation. Through play, children pool common knowledge drawn from their life experiences, and this affirms, confirms and elaborates on what they have observed within the family environment. Anderson speaks of the home environment as being a key influence in the responses of children in socially awkward situations; however he also makes a point of noting that it is not the only predictor of how a child will ultimately choose to experience their world. Although it is unlikely that a child from a fundamental immigrant family will easily acquire public culture values. Similar to the youths of street families that develop a sense of decency, children immersed in background culture often learn of a more open approach to others by way of picking up on values in another setting, such as the school. Thorough the observation of others, immigrant children become alert and attentive to interpersonal cues and personal coping strategies. The pooling of knowledge with peers acts to reinforce the lessons learnt within the home, and the immediate immigrant social group to which they are a member. Interaction with role models from their immediate communities, like parents, siblings, boyfriends/girlfriends, friends, cousins and their neighborhood, serves to cultivate the formation of understanding as the messages are verbalized drawing on past experiences. As such, the children learn the social meaning of being a social being who is an immigrant in a host nation, and this social meaning is reinforced through the interaction with significant others. Over time, their social code, be it public culture or background culture, becomes refined and ingrained. By adolescence most immigrant youth have internalized their respective social code and have learnt to conduct themselves within the parameters of their "culture's" rules and norms. As in Anderson's example, the rules are predominantly associated with ways to interact with others within and external to their immediate social spheres. In turn the youth, and eventually adult, shapes their self image and sense of identity in relation to their peers perception of what makes them the person that they are. Conclusion In summary, globalization has dramatically shifted the ways in which immigration is experienced and how it is talked about within an academic context. Post-modern immigration sees the immigrant as having social relationships with those outside of their immediate community by way of adapting a social code of being. This code is an adaption of cultural practices that allows the immigrant to survive and to function within a society which is often very different from their home state. Whether the immigrant adopt a public culture or a background culture it functions to provide the individual with a sense of self, belonging, and reference point for navigating the receiving state's ambiguous and unpredictable civil society. References Anderson, Elijah. 1996 (2006). "The Code of the Street," in Readings for Sociology,edited by Garth Massey. New York: Norton. Pp 171-183. Baubock, Rainer. 2001. " Public culture in societies of immigration", Wiley Brandt Series of Working Papers/IMER. Accessed February 17, 2007. http://dspace.mah.se/handle/2043/684 Kymlicka, Will & Wayne Norman. 2000. Introduction. In Citizenship in Diverse Societies, edited by Will Kymlicka and Wayne Norman. Oxford University Press. Pp. 2-5. Levy, Jacob. 2000. The Multiculturalism of Fear. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Pp. 10-12. Mauss, Marcel, 1985. "A Category of the human mind: the notion of person; the notion Of self," in The Category of the Person, Anthropology, philosophy, history, edited by Michael Carrithers, Steven Collins and Steven Lukes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 1-25. Mills, C. & Wright. 1992. "From The Sociological Imagination". In Seeing Ourselves, edited by John J. Macionis and Nijole V. Benokraitis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pp. 1-5. Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press. Pp. 22. Smith, Robert, C. 2003. "Diasporic memberships in historical perspective...", The International Migration Review; Fall 2003; 37, 3; Research Library. Read More