Traditional Theories of Assimilation and Nature of Immigrant Adaptation - Essay Example

TRADITIONAL THEORIES OF ASSIMMILATION AND NATURE OF IMMIGRANT ADAPTATION Traditional Theories of Assimilation and Nature of Immigrant Adaptation Introduction According to Alba and Nee (1997, p863), assimilation is defined as “the decline and at its endpoint, the disappearance, of an ethnic/racial distinction and the cultural and social differences that express it”. Through the assimilation process, it is supposed that the characteristics of immigrants and the host societies get into resemblance with one another. However, the process of integration of the immigrants continue to exist from generation to generation the assimilation process may not be complete as predicted by the theories of assimilation due to many factors and differences in the immigrant groups (Brown and Bean, 2006). The traditional theories of assimilation argued assimilation as an essential part of the upward mobility part of immigrants and hence explain the nature of immigration well (Warner and Srole, 1945). On the other hand, based on the failure of these theories to capture the assimilation process, it is now shown that the traditional theories of assimilation have failed to capture this incompleteness of assimilation and hence the nature of immigrant adaptation (Alba and Nee, 1997, 2003; Rumbaut, 1997etc).In spite of this, some studies show the assimilation theory as still relevant (Greenman and Xie, 2008).The debate remains unsettled. This essay critically evaluates the traditional theories of assimilation and their ability to explain the nature of immigrant adaptation. This essay is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the historical background underlying the migration debate. Section 3 discusses the theories of assimilation. Section 4 discusses the critiques of the theories of evaluation and evaluates the theories. Section 5 concludes the essay. 2. Historical Background The debate underlying the immigrant adaptation had its origin from the United States. The number of immigrants to USA slowed down from 1920 to 1965 while with the passing of the 1965 immigration Act, it showed significant rise again. The earlier immigrants before 1920 were mainly Europeans. The experiences with these European immigrants and their children are considered as successful assimilation into the host American society (Alba and Nee, 1997). Since 1965, the immigrants were mainly from Latin America and Asia. There has been widespread debate regarding the economic, social and cultural impact of these new immigrants on the society of America. Whether the experiences of these immigrants and their children were similar to those of the early European immigrants or not have been highly controversial (Alba and Nee 1997, 2003; Bankston and Zhou 1997; Farley and Alba 2002; Hernadez 1999; Hirschman, Kasinitz, and DeWind 1999; Gans 1992; Harris 1999; Harris, Harker, and Guo 2003 etc). The debate was mainly due to the fact that the assimilation theories developed during the late nineteenth or early twentieth century will no longer be relevant in explaining the immigration process of the present immigrants. This can be mainly due to two aspects. One is the differences between the two groups of immigrants and the other is the change in the American society itself during the time of European immigrants and at present (Xie and Greenaman, 2005). Due to the Latin American and Asian immigrants being considered as racial minorities in the American society, concerns have been raised regarding their minority status being a blocking factor to the complete integration to the society of America. Though this was the case with some of the new European immigrants earlier also, the debate has been on the fact that how much the racial minority issue for the new immigrants different from the earlier immigrants in qualitative terms(Xie and Greenaman, 2005).In addition to these, the socioeconomic backgrounds of the new immigrants were much different from those of the earlier immigrants and hence their integration to the American society can be very much different from those of the earlier immigrants. Even among the new immigrant groups, there will be much heterogeneity when compared to the earlier groups. Hence it has been argued that the process of immigrant adaptation of these two groups of immigrants explained by a single, uniform theoretical model may not be appropriate (Alba and Nee, 1997; 2003). At the time of entry of the old immigrants, the demand for semiskilled and skilled labour was very high in American economy while at the time of entry of new immigrants; this demand is significantly low due to the economic changes in the economy. The economy’s expansion was manufacturing based which facilitated the entry of old group of immigrants while at present it is service sector based that facilitates the entry of new immigrants. Due to these changes, the top of the society includes the college educated professional workers and the low skilled workers are involved at the bottom level. Another peculiarity of the new wave of immigrants is the non stopping nature of the immigrants which may affect the immigrant adaptation and block complete cultural assimilation, with new unassimilated first generation members for the new immigrants (Xie and Greenaman, 2005). Though the above features describe why the traditional theories of assimilation may not be able to explain the nature of immigrant adaptation, some scholars argue the differences between the new and early group of immigrants as overstated and hence not so much relevant (Alba and Nee, 1997, 2003; Perlmann and Waldinger, 1997). The debate remains unsettled. Given this background on the immigration adaptation debate, the next section discusses the theories of assimilation to provide a detailed picture in this regard. 3. Theories of Assimilation The three main theories of assimilation can be classified as classic assimilation model, racial/ethnic disadvantage model and the segmented assimilation model (Brown and Bean, 2006). The main studies regarding the classic assimilation model are Alba and Nee (1997, 2003) and Gordon (1964). Based on this model, there is a process called acculturation through which immigrants are slowly allowed by the host society to absorb and influence its cultural values and norms. This model suggests many stages for this process. In the first stage, structural assimilation takes place then comes by the intermarriage, followed by ethnic identification of the host society and the ending of prejudice, discrimination and value conflict(Gordon,1964).Along with these, the supporting mechanisms for assimilation as identified by Alba and Nee(1997,2003) are certain institutions including those strengthened by civil rights and law. Thus, based on this theory it has been argued that the immigrant groups become more and similar to that of the host society groups in norms and values over years. This theory thus assumes the immigrants residing in a country for longer time and their descendants showing more similarity to the main society than those residing in the host country for a shorter duration (Brown and Bean, 2006). The racial/ethnic disadvantage model has been developed based on the fact of blocking of assimilation of many immigrant groups. The main works in this model are seen in Glazer (1993) and Portes et al (1996, 2001 etc). Some immigrant groups will be ethnic minorities in a host country society than the other immigrant groups. Hence, based on this theoretical model, rise in knowledge on the language and culture of the host country need not result in complete cultural assimilation always. This is because of the existence of the blocking barriers like discrimination and institutional barriers to employment and other opportunities .Due to the existence of these barriers, first generation immigrant members will be blocked from complete assimilation and the next generation members will take longer time than the first generation members since it will be more difficult to them than the first generation members (Portes etal, 1996, 2001). The social and cultural consequences of these include the emergence of racial/ethical consciousness, according to the racial/ethnic disadvantage model. Based on this model, the debatable question is how far the new immigrant groups in American society more racially/ethnically disadvantaged than the previous immigrant groups. However, the critics of this model argue that these models overemphasize the racial/ethnic barriers instead of explaining the socioeconomic mobility sufficiently (Brown and Bean, 2006). The segmented assimilation theory includes the elements of both the classic assimilation model and the racial/ethnic disadvantage model. The most disadvantaged members of the immigrant groups according to this framework, who are affected by the structural barriers to employment and other opportunities, may result in stagnation or downward mobility. This can result in the complete rejection of assimilation by the most disadvantaged groups and the acceptance of norms and groups which are opposite in nature to those of the host society (Portes et al, 2005).On the other hand, the more advantaged groups will assimilate the traditional norms and beliefs of the host country society and encourage their children also to follow these norms and beliefs called selective acculturation (Brown and Bean, 2006). Based on this model, the structural, cultural and other factors that separate the successful cultural assimilation from the unsuccessful assimilation are thus identified. The segmented assimilation theory suggests three paths of assimilation that the immigrant groups can take. The first one as suggested by the classical assimilation model including the gradual acculturation and integration into the American host society. The second path includes acculturation and assimilation into the urban underclass and the consequent poverty and downward mobility. The third path called selective acculturation includes the conscious preservation of the culture and values of the immigrant groups followed by economic integration into the host country society. Based on this theory, it need not be always beneficial to become American by the immigrant groups (Bankston and Zhou, 1997). The extended version of segmented assimilation theory by Portes and Rumbaut (2001) has identified the factors influencing the first generation member outcomes as human capital, modes of incorporation into the host society and the family structure. These factors are argued as the main determinants of the acculturation type experienced by the parents and the children. Two types of acculturation are distinguished by this theory called consonant and dissonant acculturation. The first one involves the parents and children getting accultured in a similar way while the second one involves the children getting accultured in a faster way than the parents. The second one is considered as involving many risks since it can lead to the breakup of communication between parents and children due to the loss of ability of parents to guide and support their children. The type of parents and children’s’ acculturation relationship is argued to be very influential in determining the availability of family and community resources available for support to the children (Xie and Greenman, 2005). The theory suggests the possibility of many disadvantaged contexts like immigrant families settling in poor inner city neighbourhoods where the children might attend the poorly performing, underfunded and segregated schools in inner city neighbourhoods. In such contexts, segmented assimilation theory predicts that total assimilation of the children into the host country society can lead to affect children’s chances of upward mobility and can result in an oppositional youth culture. In these cases, the theory suggests to follow the third path since it can be helpful in preserving the original values of the immigrant society without assimilating the surrounding culture and norms totally (Portes and Rumbaut, 2001).Thus it can be seen that the segmented assimilation theory focuses on both the process and outcomes of assimilation in contrast to the other theories which focus only on the process of assimilation. At the same time, based on the works of another groups of scholars it has been argued that many immigrant groups have higher motivation levels and cultural levels than their native counterparts. This has resulted in their children getting higher educational accomplishments to the children than their native fellows (Rumbaut, 1997).However, even among the immigrant groups considerable heterogeneity is seen so that some children perform well while the others fall behind(Greenman and Xie,2008). Given the above theories of assimilation, the next section evaluates the different theories of assimilation. 4. The Evaluation of Theories of Assimilation The classical theory of assimilation explains the immigrant adaptation process in terms of total assimilation process into the host American middle class. It has been criticized for the fact this theory may no longer be relevant in explaining the present Latin American and Asian immigrants into the American society since this theory may not be able to explain their experiences as it was mainly based on the experiences of the early European immigrants which can be very much different from the new immigrants. Moreover, some group of scholars argue that the complete assimilation can lead to negative or adverse outcomes for some immigrant children like early or risky behaviour, drugs and illegal activities, higher delinquency risks and substance abuse etc (Harris, 1999; Upchurch etal, 2001 etc).On the other hand, some groups of empirical studies showed the outcomes of assimilation need not be negative always and has positive outcomes also like higher self esteems (Rhee et al, 2003). In spite of the widespread criticisms on the classical theory of assimilation in explaining the immigrant adaptation, it is not clear how far the new groups of immigrants like the Asians and the Latin Americans are different from the earlier groups of immigrants and hence their experiences with the process of assimilation. Studies like Alba and Nee (1997, 2003) showed the European immigrants also not fully assimilating toll the third or fourth generation and hence is similar to the limited assimilation seen in the present immigrant groups. Other studies like Waldinger and Feliciano (2004) showed the assimilation outcomes of Mexican immigrants who are supposed to be the most disadvantaged immigrant group as similar to the early European immigrants with convergence to the native whites more than with native minority groups across generations. The argument of racial disadvantage also has been a subject of debate among different scholars. This group argues that the possibility of racial distinction for the immigrant groups will vanish in the long term and hence the obstacles for many opportunities for cultural assimilation will vanish over a long term for the immigrants (Perlmann and Waldinger, 1997). According to the critiques of the classical theory of assimilation, it has been argued that the effects of the assimilation will be positive always based on classical theory. They argue the outcomes of the assimilation as variable rather than positive and point out this as a critique of classical theory. Focusing on the worsening health of the US immigrants, they showed this as the result of sedentary lifestyles and overdependence on the fast foods typical in modern American society. However, this need not be a critique of the classical theory as argued by some studies and it was merely an extrapolation (Xie and Greenamn, 2005). The focus of classical theory was mainly on socio economic outcomes like occupational attainment and social class mobility while not predicted anything on socioeconomic outcomes. Hence, they argue the adverse outcome of assimilation like worsening health need not be evidence against classical theory since it is outside the focus of the theory. Greenman and Xie (2008) showed the limitations of the existing empirical studies on the effects of complete assimilation non immigrant children. These include the findings of the studies differing based on the different samples for examining the impact of assimilation on various outcomes and different outcomes used. Since the findings of the earlier studies were based on different samples, the variability in the impact of assimilation for different outcomes may be confused by the variability in the samples. Hence the results can be misleading. To get a clear picture in thus regard, the study thus demanded the need for examining the effects of assimilation on different outcomes based on a same and large sample of immigrant children. Another main limitation with the existing studies as pointed out by this study was that the existing studies relied on only one or two measures of assimilation to examine the effects on outcomes while the theory predicted different dimensions of assimilation like acculturation, structural assimilation, spatial assimilation and generational assimilation. The measures of assimilation used by most existing studies included non English language use, duration of US residence, foreign versus US birth or a combined measure of these. However, it is shown that these measures need not capture all the dimensions of assimilation and hence the results can be misleading. The study thus pointed out the need for a comprehensive analysis capturing the multiple dimensions of assimilation to examine their effects on different outcomes based on a large and same sample of immigrant children. Thus the results of existing studies can be misleading and hence cannot be considered as critiques of classical theory of assimilation. Though the segmented theory of assimilation to some extent argued to explain the experiences of the present immigrant groups, this has many shortcomings. One is that the term segmented assimilation itself implicitly assumes assimilation having variable effects on outcomes, which can be misleading. The main critique about the segmented theory lies in its ambiguity on specific details of empirical research and thus can have several alternative interpretations (Xie and Greenman, 2005).Moreover, they argue that the second generation rebellion also existed among the early European immigrants while it did not lead to downward mobility, which was the only difference. Moreover, the opposition culture which was argued to develop in the youth based on the segmented assimilation theory need not necessarily due to the immigrant work experience but can be the result of assimilation into the American underclass itself (Xie and Greenman, 2005).Another criticism on the segmented assimilation theory lies in the costs and benefits of limited assimilation to the American underclass .As argued by the theory, the limited assimilation gives a protective effect to the children instead of completely assimilating into American underclass. The critics argue this having many costs that can outweigh the benefits. These costs include restricting immigrants’ knowledge of the full range of available opportunities and the excessive obligations towards relatives and other co ethnics( Dewind and Kasinitz,1997).Hence these critics argue the necessity for the complete assimilation of the immigrants into the American underclass in spite of whether they want it or not(Alba and Nee,2003). Based on another argument of the critics, the assimilation of immigrants need not be always thought as assimilation into underclass while it can be to the black middle class also, which is often ignored(Alba and Nee,2003).The critics show diverse cultural models among African Americans which can be used for assimilation by the immigrants(Xie and Greenman,2005). Moreover the outcomes can be poor as per this model in case of racialization or for factors slowing down mobility according to the critics. The empirical assessment of this model always stopped with the second generation which raised lot of criticisms. This can result in misinterpretation of oppositional behaviour seen in the youth and misconstrue the assimilation speed (Brown and Bean, 2006). Many studies show the process of assimilation occurring only after four or five generations (Bean and Brown, 2006). Thus it can be seen that though the segmented assimilation theory to some extent provides an explanation for the immigrant adaptation, it is subject to several ambiguities which make interpretations difficult based on empirical research. Given these, two comprehensive empirical studies taken care of the existing limitations are discussed below to find the relevance of classical versus segmented assimilation theories for explaining the process of immigrant adaptation. The study by Xie and Greenman(2005) based on the survey data from National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health used three approaches to assimilation the demographic proxied by immigration generation and length of stay, contextual approach proxied by percentage of native born persons in a neighbourhood and percentage of non co-ethnics in a neighbourhood as well as behavioural approach proxied by proportion of co ethnics in the school and total number of friends nominated. Thus six different proxies for assimilation under three separate groups were used in the study. Moreover the interaction effect between micro level assimilation measures and the macro level community context were also captured in the study through taking the school context and the community context. The outcomes analyzed in the study were educational, psychological well being and risk behaviours proxied by graduation from high-school, college enrolment, self reported grades, self esteem measures, depression measures, delinquency, violence, use of controlled substance and age at first sexual intercourse. The statistical analysis based on OLS regressions for linear outcomes and logit regression for dichotomous outcomes showed positive impact of assimilation on college enrolment, academic achievement self esteem, delinquency, violence, use of controlled substance and early sex initiation while negative impact on depression. Thus the results showed positive impact of assimilation on psychological wellbeing and educational outcomes while positive impact on risk behaviours also at the same time. Thus the evidence obtained was in favour of classical assimilation theory rather than being against it as argued by many critiques. The study by Greenman and Xie(2008) also based on the data from the survey data from National Longitudinal Survey of Adolescent Health showed results in favour of the classical theory of assimilation than against it. This study used measures of acculturation, structural assimilation, generational assimilation and spatial assimilation for examining their impacts on educational, psychological wellbeing and risk based behaviours. The results based on multivariate regression analysis showed the outcomes to be highly variable depending on the ethnic group, measures of outcomes and assimilation. The results showed positive impact of assimilation on some measures of risk behaviour for most ethnic groups under consideration while positive impact of assimilation measures on educational and psychological well being indicators for some ethnic groups and not so for some other ethnic groups. Overall results suggested complex relationships between assimilation and different outcomes .The results demanded future research in more detail showing the assimilation effects and the relative positions of new immigrants and natives with respect to a specific outcome. The study thus saw the results rooted in classical assimilation theory rather than complete rejection of the theory, emphasizing a process of gradual decline of differences between groups over time. 5. Conclusion In this essay, the various concepts and approaches underlying the migration debate have been discussed in detail based on the theories of assimilation. The alternative theories of assimilation including classical, racial disadvantage theory and the segmented assimilation theories have also been discussed in detail. The evaluation of different theories and the empirical evidence for the theories have also been discussed. The discussion shows that the classical theories have been criticized based on their inability to capture the differences in experiences existing among the new group of immigrants which include mainly Asians and the Latin Americans and the earlier immigrant groups which included mainly Europeans. The criticisms have been mainly based on the differences between the two groups and the changing American society at the time of early immigrants and the present immigrants. The classical theory argued for complete assimilation into Americans underclass which has been controversial. To some extent, the criticisms can be considered as valid. The discussion however shows the so called differences existing between the old and new groups of immigrants are still not clear. Hence the complete rejection of classical theory cannot be considered as appropriate. Moreover, many of the criticisms of the classical theories are obtained to be overstatements or extrapolation as obtained from the discussion. The alternative theories like segmented assimilation theories helped to explain the differences to some extent while suffered from lot of ambiguities making interpretations difficult. Moreover, the empirical assessment of this theory seemed to be difficult due to the ambiguities associated with the theory. The discussion showed the limitations associated with the existing empirical studies on assimilation impacts and the need for a comprehensive study in this regard. The two studies discussed here showed the relationship between assimilation and the outcomes as highly variable and not simple. The results however, failed to reject classical theory completely while a reconceptualization of the theories was demanded. Hence it can be concluded that while traditional theories of assimilation have not been able to explain the immigrant adaptation completely, to some extent these theories were able to explain it, based on the discussion here. References Alba, Richard and V Nee(1997). “Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of Immigration.” International Migration Review 31(4): 826-874. Alba Richard and V Nee (2003). “Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration”. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bankston, Carl L., and Min Zhou(1997). “The Social Adjustment of Vietnamese American Adolescents: Evidence for a Segmented-Assimilation Approach.” Social Science Quarterly 78(2): 509-523. Brown,S,K and FDBean(2006): “New Immigrants, New Models of Assimilation”, Prepared for a Special Issue on “The Second Generation,” Migration Information Source , Migration Policy Institute, Washington, DC . Farley, Reynolds and Richard Alba(2002). “The New Second Generation in the United States.” International Migration Review 36(3): 669-701. Gans, Herbert J. 1992. “Second-Generation Decline: Scenarios for the Economic and Ethnic Futures of the post-1965 American Immigrants.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 15(2): 173-192. Gordon Milton (1964). “Assimilation in American Life”. New York: Oxford University Press; Greenman,E and Y, Xie(2008): “Is Assimilation Theory Dead: The Effect of Assimilation on Adolescent Well Being”, Social Science Research, March 37(1),p109-137. Harris, Kathleen Mullan(1999). “The Health Status and Risk Behaviors of Adolescents in Immigrant Families.” Pp. 286-347 in Donald J. Hernandez (ed.), Children of Immigrants: Health, Adjustment, and Public Assistance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Harris, Kathleen Mullan, Kathryn Harker and Guang Guo. (2003). “The Role of Peers in the Adaptation Processes of Immigrant Youth.” Paper presented at the Population Association of America annual meeting, Minneapolis, MN. Hernadez, Donald J. 1999. (editor) “Children of Immigrants: Health, Adjustment, and Public Assistance”. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Hirschman, Charles, Philip Kasinitz, and Josh DeWind(1999). (editors) “The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience”. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Perlmann, Joel and Roger Waldinger. 1997. “Second Generation Decline? Children of Immigrants, Past and Present – A Reconsideration.” International Migration Review 31(4): 893-922. Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. (1993). “The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 530: 74-96. Portes Alejandro, Rumbaut Ruben G. (2001): “Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation”. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Portes, Alejandro, Patricia Fernández-Kelly, and William Haller. 2005. “Segmented assimilation on the ground: The new second generation in early adulthood.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 28: 1000-1040. Rhee Siyon, Chang Janet, Rhee Jessica(2003). “Acculturation, Communication Patterns, and Self-Esteem among Asian and Caucasian Adolescents”. Adolescence. 38(152):749–768. Upchurch Dawn M, Aneshensel Carol S, Mudgal Jyoti, McNeely Clea Sucoff(2001). “Sociocultural Contexts of Time to First Sex Among Hispanic Adolescents”. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2001;63:1158–1169 Warner W L, L Srole (1945) “The Social Systems of American Ethnic Groups”. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Waldinger R and F Cynthia(2004). “Will the New Second Generation Experience ‘Downward Assimilation?’ Segmented Assimilation Re-Assessed”. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 27(3):376–402 Xie, Y and E Greenman(2005): “Segmented Assimilation Theory: A Reformulation and Empirical Test”, Population Studies Centre Report 05-581,August. Read More