Assimilation or Acculturation - Assignment Example

Assimilation or acculturation? With reference to the literature, define these terms and discuss the role and nature of cultural change when living and working in another country. Introduction Our world is a world where there are ‘‘simultaneous events and overall awareness’’ which goes on constantly, says McLuhan, 1962. The place we live in is a combination of such dizzying interfaces that include “national, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and religious traditions,” More so concepts or definition of the term them and us, which were quite clear at one time are becoming hazed. If we look at the progress that the current generations are facing, the so called “globalization”, it makes us realize how this closely interwoven structure of “communication and transportation” has gotten divergent nations, people, races, beliefs, and language groups more closer than it was ever thought possible. The internet has been a great way of bringing the world closer still and now everything is within the reach of people. Traditional methods of conducting business are now on the verge of missing the significance fast, for instance “culture” as known to human beings and with the typical image is now just a sentimental idea or thought rather than being real. Toffler said that one finds themselves fronting a considerable jump headlong. “We face the deepest social upheaval and creative restructuring of all time” (Toffler, 1980: 44). In reality with no one to clearly recognize this, people seem to be involved in the construction of a very unusual civilization that is absolutely new from scratch. Thus we can say that an individual is confronted in facing each other’s numerous variances and also to search similarities in humans in order to know how to “move beyond their customary imagination in search of creative solutions to problems”. The world where we live in is also a place where there are lots of contrasting traditions and grouped identities. These are the actual powers that eliminate “physical boundaries” aggravate cultural and nationwide conflicts, bringing forth disturbing news features and a troubling politically based scenario. Identity Crisis From the material studied so far it is evident that in the modern world because of globalization and advancement in technology people have come closer and share their cultural beliefs and ideas with each other as well. Moving from one country to another is no longer an issue and we find so many nationalities living in different countries under the laws and procedures of that particular country. But do they have their own identity? Are they acknowledged for who they are and where they belong too? These are the questions that we may find whenever the discussion related to immigrants is concerned. It is observed that in the end all minorities face the question of their identity. It may come in an assorted flavoring but beneath it all it is “the dilemma of assimilation vs acculturation”.  Assimilation vs acculturation Let us look at the basic difference of these two terms. According to the views of the social scientists, “assimilation is allowing ones original culture to be overridden by the dominant culture”. Whereas the term “acculturation” implies that there lies the capability in people to be able to function in the prevailing culture in the area and still being able to retain their unique culture. It is undoubtedly a very subtle difference but it is tense because of the “not-so-subtle” implications of the society and psychology of human beings.   To understand these terms further we will review the following points. The term assimilation is applied mostly to the practice where large groups of immigrants “from Europe were absorbed into the American population during the 19th and the early part of the 20th century” (Sociology Guide, n.d.). This came out to be a very dramatic and “highly visible set of events” allowing the illustration of this process as well. The term is not limited though and there may be a few more types of assimilation and some other aspects as well especially of the “European migrants that might be put in propositional form.” Mainly the assimilation is not a sing way process, it is a two way one. Secondly, the assimilations of individuals along with groups take place. Thirdly a few of these assimilations may occur in “all lasting interpersonal situations.” Fourthly, it is frequently unfinished and produces modification difficulties for individuals and lastly, assimilation does not work either equally rapidly or effectively on different groups. On the contrary the term acculturation is mostly used in areas where it is essential to define “both the process of contacts between different cultures and also the customs of such contacts.” According to some social scientists “acculturation may involve either direct social interaction or exposure to other cultures by means of the mass media of communication.” It may also be termed as the “process of contact between cultures.” As a result of this type of a contact, the term acculturation denotes its assimilation of a cultural group to another. This also changes the culture that exists and in turn changes the identity of the group. A possibility exists for strain amongst these two “cultures” that will lead to the acclimatizing of both old and new. The Asian American population on the whole shows enough proof of having both “assimilation and acculturation”. Further in the article we will refer to some of the studies among various immigrant groups (or minorities). How they have come to know about “their preferred acculturation orientation is integration rather than assimilation” (Berry, et al, 1989; Berry, et al, 2006; Lambert & Taylor, 1988; Wolsko, Park & Judd, 2006). Nevertheless, studying the large number of group members will expose a tiny bit of positivity in the attitudes toward the concept of multiculturalism (Verkuyten, 2005, 2006, 2007). It was further revealed that “apart from Canada, where the policy of multiculturalism was first officially introduced, national surveys often show a preference for assimilation among members of the host society” (Coenders, Lubbers & Scheepers, 2004; Wolsko, Park, & Judd., 2006; Zick, Wagner, van Dick & Petzel, 2001). As Van Oudenhoven, Ward and Masgoret (2006) state in their latest evaluation of the proof: In comparison with the migrants commonly preferring assimilation, the society considered to be the host members more than often have adopted the so called “assimilation ideology’’. Moreover, the members of the host culture commonly demonstrate a more biased reaction “against immigrants who want to integrate than against immigrants who want to assimilate (Maisonneuve & Teste´ , 2007; Van Oudenhoven & Eisses, 1998).” Coming to the concluding analysis of both these terms, the decision needs to be taken separately, each of the so called thirteen million people, comprising of the total population of the Asian Americans by the end of 2002. Although these decisions will be relying strongly on the following terms and conditions, for example “length of residence in the U.S., occupation, education, early experiences, family influence and self-image.”  The hypothetical explanation offered in an essay compromises of a feasible substitute image of “being oriented to oneself and to the world that is more open, flexible, and inclusive.” (Yun Kim). Basically it talks about the unique plasticity of the human process, ‘‘our relative freedom from programmed reflexive patterns……the very capacity to use culture to construct our identities’’ (Slavin & Kriegman, 1992, p. 6). Also the projection is an unusual type of attitude where the “cross-borrowing” of individualities is not considered as the way of giving up “one’s personal and cultural integrity”. On the contrary it is a way that shows a kind of “respect for cultural differences that leaves neither the lender nor the borrower deprived.” Considering the new and ever changing concepts regarding the “intercultural personhood” we find that there is a very similar was that makes one feel related or to be a part of a society. A method or approach to be able to exist is thus found which aims at trying to incorporate and embrace what might seem to be opposite ethnic essentials and turn them into a unique and new thing. “Intercultural personhood projects a way of relating to oneself and to fellow human beings with greater objectivity, realism, and evenhandedness.”     Several of the social scientists say that “socio-economic status and not the mirror is the primary criterion for mainstream acceptance.” However, the data shows a small percentage of the whole American population who have managed to complete minimum degree of 4 years, amongst the “Asian Americans the college-completion rate was 42% as of 1997.” Similarly the “college-completion rate is climbing. Among Asian Americans aged 25-29, fully 50% had at least a bachelors degree. The higher educational levels have translated to higher rates of entry into professional positions (43% vs 27%) and higher median household incomes: 42% of AA households earned more than $75,000 as of 2000.  “Eventually, the hot question will not be “whether we can assimilate, but whether we should. What are the advantages and disadvantages of retaining our identities as Asians in a white-majority society? What is the price paid by those who choose to assimilate? What is better for the U.S. as a nation?”  The term “Globalisation” and “Acculturation” If the idea of acculturation and globalization are separate, then one definitely needs to inquire as to what the kind of relation that exists among them. Globalisation, acts as a contact which offers the preliminary idea for “acculturation”. Previously we saw that it all starts with the relation among groups, individuals and cultures. Secondly from looking closely the differences that are mentioned in the argument of strategies for acculturation, we can drive four possibilities. The first option is, globalisation may lead towards homogenization of global cultures, from societies that are not dominant joining to the one that are dominant. Another prospect may be that there is common change, which leads to some level of junction amongst both groups that may lead common traits, while holding common features of both. The third possibility is that the groups which are not dominating discard the effect of the dominating culture, either by rejecting them or by detaching from them after they have begun. Lastly, globalisation can also move to total annihilation of non-dominant cultures, leaving them without a cultural at all. Strategies for Acculturation “Not all groups and individuals undergo acculturation in the same way; there are large variations in how people seek to engage the process. These variations have been termed acculturation strategies” (Berry, 1980). These approaches contain of two modules: one is a person’s fondness of how to acculturate (attitude), and the other is their actual activities (behaviors), which are seen in the everyday happenstances. Since these two components do not have a complete correspondence between them, they are kept separated, both theoretically and empirically; restraints are mostly applied by groups that are dominant so that peoples are not allowed to do what they please. “Nevertheless, when measures of preferences and behaviors are both included in a composite assessment of how people are acculturating, there is usually a pattern that exhibits a consistent strategy” (Berry et al., 1989). Strategies to be used depend on a range of both social and emotional aspects; and there are various results of these strategies. “At the individual level both behavior changes and acculturative stress phenomena are now know n to be a function, at least to some extent, of what people try to do during their acculturation; and the longer-term outcomes (both psychological and sociocultural adaptations) often correspond to the strategic goals set by the groups of which they are members” (Berry, 1997). Four strategies for acculturation have been concluded from two elementary concerns being faced by all such groups. “These two issues are based on the distinction between orientations towards one’s own group and those towards other groups” (Berry, 1980). These concerns have the difference between a fondness for sustaining one group values and uniqueness, and a comparative liking for having link with and taking part in the bigger society consisting of other groups that are ethno cultural. Conclusion The question that was addressed in this paper was whether “assimilation or acculturation?” the material that had been studied and eh examples found reflect only one thing and that is the identity of a human being is truly important. No one can survive without his/her identity and to accept people as to whom they are and from the places they belong and add them into one’s own societal and cultural belief is upon the states or individuals themselves. “The status boundary enforcement effect is an important process shaping the attitudes and ideology of people with high SDO.” Compiling the research results of Thomsen et al. (2008) regarding the larger readiness to “aggress against immigrants”, with the result of current studies “on a shift toward more extreme right-wing views,” it seems hard not to think that one is close to an explanation for the violence perpetrated by fascist and extreme right-wing movements against members of ethnic minorities in various countries. It is for sure that no complete research has progressed or came into view so far and more is required to be done in this area. It will help to stipulate the arbitrating instrument of “this status boundary enforcement effect and to determine the nature of the threat involved.” Finally, the effectiveness of the multiculturalism option as a mean to break down this vicious cycle received support in the present study. More research is certainly needed on this important question as well. As previously suggested the decision of how one might wish to relate to the global changes and the cultural adjustments lies sole upon the individual themselves. “The intercultural outlooks on self, others, and life are represented by the integrative thoughts of Muneo Yoshikawa, Yo-Yo Ma, and Orhan Pamuk. It is individuals such as these in which the viability of the present model of intercultural personhood rests. They represent numerous others around the world who bear witness to the remarkable” (Y.Y. Kim / International Journal of Intercultural Relations; 2008). Identity bearings of the so called “individuated and universalized” disregard the basic as well as orthodox classifications of persons plus show a mode “of being in the world.” In its place, “intercultural orientations” assist in holding together, assimilating, and uplifting different groups of ethnic or cultural beliefs and to allow the citizens acknowledge their combined ‘blind spots’ in addition to dampening extreme assertions for national individuality. Personal visions display a method of existence in a place capable of nurturing preeminence of ones autonomy while coping up with the most important single challenge in the existing world, specifically, “the need of what Toffler (1980) referred to as the character of transcendence’’. References Berry, J.W., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., Bujaki, M. (1989), Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology, 38(2): 185-206. Berry, JW. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(6): 697-712. Berry, J. Phinney, J. Sam, D., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national contexts. NJ: Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Berry, JW. (2008). Globalisation and acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(4): 328-336. Gold Sea. (2008). Asian American Assimilation vs Acculturation. [Online] Available at: http://www.goldsea.com/Air/Issues/Identity/identity.html [Accessed March 7, 2010]. Guimond, S., De Oliveira, P., Kamiesjki, R., & Sidanius, J. (2010). The trouble with assimilation: Social dominance and the emergence of hostility against immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. Article in press. Hood, JN. (1994). Patterns of Differential Assimilation and Acculturation for Women in Business Organizations. Human Relations, 47(2): 159-181. Kim, YY. (2008). Intercultural personhood: Globalization and a way of being. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(4): 359-368. Korzenny, F. (1999). Acculturation vs. Assimilation among US Hispanics. [Online] Available at: http://www.cheskin.com/assets/HispanicAcculturationAssimilation.pdf [Accessed March 7, 2010]. Lambert, W.E. & Taylor, D.M. (1988). Assimilation versus multiculturalism: The views of urban Americans. Sociological Forum, 3, 72-88. Sociology Guide. (n.d.). Acculturation. [Online] Available at: http://www.sociologyguide.com/basic-concepts/Acculturation.php [Accessed March 7, 2010]. Toffler, A. (1980). The third wave. New York: Bantam Books. Van Oudenhoven, JP., Ward, C., & Masgoret, AM. (2006). Patterns of relations between immigrants and host societies. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 637- 652. Verkuyten, M. (2005). The social psychology of ethnic identity. Hove, UK: Psychology Press. Verkuyten, M. (2007). Religious group identification and intergroup relations: A study among Turkish-Dutch Muslims. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 341–357. Wolsko, C., Park, B., & Judd, C.M. (2006). Considering the tower of Babel: Correlates of assimilation and multiculturalism among ethnic minority and majority groups in the United States. Social Justice Research, 19, 277-306. Zick, A., Wagner, U., van Dick, R., & Petzel, T. (2001). Acculturation and prejudice in Germany: majority and minority perspectives. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3). 541-557. Read More