Cultural assimilation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Not to be confused with Intermarriage.
For other uses, see assimilation (disambiguation).
 This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
Please help recruit one or improve this article yourself. See the talk page for details.
Please consider using {{Expert-subject}} to associate this request with a WikiProject
This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations.
You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations.

Cultural assimilation (often called merely assimilation) is a process of integration whereby members of an ethno-cultural community (such as immigrants, or ethnic minorities) are "absorbed" into another, generally larger, community. This implies the loss of the characteristics of the absorbed group, such as language, customs, ethnicity and self-identity.

Assimilation may be voluntary or forced, as is often the case regarding ethnic minorities (see forced assimilation).

A region or society where several different groups are spontaneously assimilated is sometimes referred to as a melting pot.

Contents

[edit] Cultural influence

A group (a state or an ethnicity) can spontaneously adopt a different culture due to its political relevance, or to its perceived superiority. The first is the case of the Latin culture and language, that were gradually adopted by most of the subjugated people.

The second is the case of subjugated, but older and richer culture, which see itself imitated by the new masters, e.g. the victorious Roman Republic adopted more from the Hellenistic cultures than it imposed in most domains, except such Roman specialities as law and the military.

[edit] Assimilation of immigrants

Immigrant assimilation is a complex process in which an immigrant fully integrates herself into a new country. Social scientists rely on four primary benchmarks to assess immigrant assimilation: socioeconomic status, geographic distribution, second language attainment, and intermarriage[citation needed]. William A.V. Clark defines immigrant assimilation "as a way of understanding the social dynamics of American society and that it is the process that occurs spontaneously and often unintended in the course of interaction between majority and minority groups".[1].

It has been found that between 1880 and 1920, the United States took in roughly 24 million immigrants.[2] This increase in immigration can be attributed to many historical changes. Later, during the cold war from the 1960s through the 1980s and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s,[3] over 1.8 million Jews (including some non-Jewish family members) emigrated from the former Soviet Union.[3] The major destination countries were Israel (about 1.1 million), the United States (over 400,000), Germany (about 130,000), and Canada (about 30,000).[3] The beginnng of the twenty-first century has also marked a massive era of immigration, and sociologist are once trying to make sense of the impact that immigration has on society and the impact it has on immigrants themselves.[2]

[edit] Theoretical explanations

Researchers have attempted to explain the assimilation rate for post 1965 immigrants in the United States with experiences of immigrants who entered the United States between 1880 and 1920.[2] Many of the methods and theories that are used to assess immigrant assimilation today are derived from earlier immigrant studies. One of the leading theories in understanding immigrant assimilation came from William I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki whom published "The Polish Peasant in Europe and America".[2] William I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki's study on Polish immigrants(1880-1910)assessed how these immigrants built an institutional community in the United States during the Napoleonic War.[2] Another influence on immigrant assimilation came from Robert Park, Ernest Burgess, and William I. Thomas, in which they trained graduate students to study the experiences of immigrants in Chicago. Robert Park, Ernest Burgess, and William I. Thomas provided these graduate students with theoretical tools such as Park's theory on collective behavior.[2] The third theory on immigrant assimilation comes from Gordon's book, Assimilation in American life. Gordon highlighted the generational change in immigrant groups, it states that the first generation or foreign born were less assimilated and less exposed to American life than their American-born children (the [second generation]), and their grandchildren (third-generation) were more like the American mainstream than their parents.[2].

[edit] Theoretical models to immigrant assimilation

The first, classic and new assimilation model sees immigrants and native-born people following a "straight-line" or a convergence.[3] This theory sees immigrants becoming more similar over time in norms, values, behaviors, and characteristics.[4] This theory also expects those immigrants residing the longest in the host population, as well as the members of later generations, to show greater similarities with the majority group than immigrants who have spent less time in the host society.[5]The second, [racial]/ethnic disadvantage model states that immigrant's chances to assimilate are "blocked".[citation needed] An example of this model would be discrimination and institutional barriers to employment and other opportunities.[6]. The third, the segmented assimilation model theorizes that structural barriers, such as poor urban schools, cut off access to employment and other opportunities — obstacles that often are particularly severe in the case of the most disadvantaged members of immigrant groups, and such impediments can lead to stagnant or downward mobility, even as the children of other immigrants follow divergent paths toward classic straight-line assimilation. [7].

[edit] Core measurements to immigrant assimilation

Researchers have assessed that assimilation exists among immigrants because we can measure assimilation on four primary benchmarks. These core measurable aspects of immigrant assimilation that were formulated to study European immigrants are still the starting points for understanding current immigrant assimilation. These measurable aspects of assimilation are socioeconomic status, spatial concentration, language attainment, and intermarriage.[2]

  1. Socioeconomic Status is defined by educational attainment, occupation, and income. By measuring socioeconomic status researchers want to find out if immigrants eventually catch up to native-born people in terms of human capital characteristics.
  2. Spatial Concentration is defined by geography or residential patterns. The spatial residential model (based on theories of Park) proposed by Massey states that increasing socioeconomic attainment, longer residence in the U.S, and higher generational status lead to decreasing residential concentration for a particular ethnic group.[4].
  3. Language Attainment is defined as the ability to speak English and the loss of the individual's mother tongue.[2] The three-generation model of language assimilation states that the first generation makes some progress in language assimilation but remains dominant in their native tongue, the second generation is bilingual, and the third-generation only speaks English.[2]
  4. Intermarriage is defined by race and only occasionally by ethnicity and generation.[2] High rates of intermarriage are considered to be an indication of social integration because it reveals intimate and profound relations between people of different groups, intermarriage reduces the ability of families to pass on to their children a consistent ethnic culture and thus is an agent of assimilation.[5]

[edit] Policies on immigrant assimilation

When considering immigrant assimilation it is important to consider why immigrants migrate. One reason immigrants migrated was The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act(IRCA), which legalized 2.3 million formally undocumented Mexican Immigrants.[2] This Act freed these newly legalized immigrants from the fear of being apprehended, and it was found that many of these immigrants moved to states beyond the nearest U.S-Mexican border.[2].

[edit] Modifications for assessing immigrant assimilation

Studies on immigrant assimilation in the 19th century and 20th century conclude that immigrants had a hard time catching up to the same human capital characteristics as native-born people in the 19th century, but studies in the 20th century suggest that immigrants eventually catch up to native born people.[citation needed] Timothy J. Hatton explains this puzzle on immigrant assimilation in the 19th century and in the 20th century. He explores how recent studies have been producing misleading results between the two. Hatton focuses his research on the specification of the earnings function.[6].Hatton argues that that specification of the earnings function should be improved in two ways. First, immigrants who arrived as children should be treated separately from those who arrived as adults.[6] Second, specification of the earnings function should be better approximate to the true shape of age-earnings profiles.[6]. Hatton points out that with these modifications , the patterns of immigrant earnings which have emerged make more sense with those of the 20th century and with traditional views on immigrant assimilation in the 19th century.[6]

[edit] Owning a home and immigrant assimilation

Owning a home can be seen as a step into assimilation. William A.V. Clark explores this link in his book "Immigrants and the American Dream Remarking the Middle Class". Clark is aware that the process of assimilation is more than just being able to purchase a home. He argues that "homeownership" is one of the steps of assimilation, it is becoming part of the community and a neighborhood, and being a part of the daily activities that take place in a community.[1]

[edit] Naturalization and immigrant assimilation

Citizenship is one of the most significant dimensions of assimilation outside of marriage.[1] The immigration debate focuses not only the number of immigrants who should be admitted, who should be allowed to be admitted but it is also looks at the processes of incorporation, and most importantly how citizenship should be extended and to who it should be extended to.[1] For example, should it be extended to those who arrive illegally.[1] Allowing for naturalization of immigrants can create tension in assimilation. On one hand, those who favor the admission of immigrants input that these new residents will help build and enrich the American democratic process.[1] However others argue that the nature and legitimacy of the nation may be challenged and perhaps even threatened.[1]

[edit] New immigrant gateways and immigrant assimilation

Although it is changing, the overwhelming majority of immigrants still settle in traditional gateway states such as Florida, New York, California, Illinois, Texas, and Massachusetts.[2]. It has found that immigrants settle in traditional gateways where there are large populations of foreign-born people. Walters and Jimenez have illustrated the changes in the geographic distribution and the rates of growth of immigration in the United States.[2] They show the number of foreign-born individuals in states where the foreign-born population grew by a factor of two or more between 1990 and 2000.[2] Walters and Jimenez found that the largest percentage growth in the foreign-born population, was found in either the Midwest or the South in additional none of the traditional gateways were included in this large percentage growth.[2] Walters and Jimenez noted that a reason these traditional gateways did not have an increase at the same rate of the new gateways was because, new gateways did not have many immigrants to begin with. Walters and Jimenez have argued that this new change in geography could possibly change the way researchers assess immigrant assimilation. They argue that these new gateways are unique and they propose that immigrant assimilation may be different from the experiences of immigrants in more traditional gateways in at least three ways. First, the long history of immigration in these established gateways means that the place of immigrants in terms of class, racial, and ethnic hierarchies in these traditional gateways are more structured or established on the other hand these new gateways do not have much immigration history therefore the place of immigrants in terms of class, racial, and ethnic hierarchies is less defined and immigrants may have more influence to define their position.[2] Second, the size of new gateways may influence immigrant assimilation.[2] Having a smaller gateway may influence the level of segregation among immigrants and native-born people. Third, the difference in institutional arrangements may influence immigrant assimilation. Traditional gateways unlike new gateways have many institutions set up to help immigrants which include legal-aid, bureaus, social organizations.[2] Finally, Walters and Jimenez have only speculated that these differences may influence immigrant assimilation and the way researchers should assess immigrant assimilation.

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ a b c d e f g Clark, W. 2003 Immigrants and the American Dream Remaking the Middle Class. NY, NY: The Guilford Press.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Waters, Mary C.; Jiménez, Tomás R. "Assessing Immigrant Assimilation: New Empirical and Theoretical Challenges" Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 31 No. 1 (2005) 105-125
  3. ^ a b c [1].
  4. ^ Ellis, Mark and Goodwin-White, J. "Generation Internal Migration in the U.S.: Dispersion from States of Immigration?" International Migration Review, Vol. 40 No. 4 (2006) 899-926
  5. ^ Pagnini, L. and Morgan, S.P. "Intermarriage and the social distance among U.S. Immigrants at the Turn of the Century" American Journal of Sociology, Vol 96 No.2 (1990) 405-432.
  6. ^ a b c d Hatton, Timothy J. "The Immigrant Assimilation Puzzle in Late Nineteenth-Century America" Journal of Economic History, Vol. 57 No. ((Mar. 1997) 34-62

[edit] References

  • Richard D. Alba, Victor Nee. (2003) Remaking the American Mainstream. Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration, Harvard University Press, 359 pages ISBN 0674018133
  • Andrew Armitage. (1995) Comparing the Policy of Aboriginal Assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, UBC Press, 286 pages ISBN 0774804599
  • James A. Crispino (1980) The Assimilation of Ethnic Groups: The Italian Case, Center for Migration Studies, 205 pages ISBN 0913256390
  • Gordon, Milton M. "Assimilation in America: Theory and Reality," in Yetman, pp. 245-258/ (Originally from Daedalus, Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Boston, Mass., vol. 90, no. 2 (Spring) 1961: 263-285.Q11.B7 [For the more thorough treatment see Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964.]
  • Edward Murguía (1975) Assimilation, Colonialism, and the Mexican American People, Center for Mexican American Studies, University of Texas at Austin, 124 pages ISBN 0292775202
  • Robert A. Grauman. (1951) Methods of studying the cultural assimilation of immigrants, University of London
  • Julius Drachsler. (1920) Democracy and Assimilation. The Blending of Immigrant Heritages in America, Macmillan, 275 pages
  • Zhou, Min. Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and Recent Research on the New Second Generation. International Migration Review, Vol 31, No. 4, Special Issue: Immigrant Adaptation and Native-Born Responses in the Making of Americans. Winter 1997: 975-1008.
  • Kazal, R. A. “Revisiting Assimilation” American Historical Society. Vol. 100 April 1995.

[edit] External links

v • d • e
Cultural assimilation
Africanisation · Albanisation · Americanisation · Anglicisation · Arabisation · Araucanisation · Bulgarisation · Castilianisation · Christianisation · Croatisation · Czechisation · Estonisation · Europeanisation · Fennicisation · Francisation · Gaelicisation · Germanisation · Globalisation · Hellenisation · Hispanicisation · Islamisation · Italianisation · Japanification · Kurdification · Lithuanisation · Magyarisation · Pashtunisation · Persianisation · Polonisation · Romanianisation · Romanisation (cultural) · Russification · Sanskritisation · Serbianisation · Sinhalisation · Sinicisation · Slavicisation · Slovakisation · Sovietisation · Syrianisation · Thaification · Turkification · Turkmenisation · Ukrainisation · Uzbekisation · Westernisation
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_assimilation"
Personal tools