Arguments and Challenges for Integration:

‘Integration’ as described in Berry’s acculturation model is the fairest form of acculturation possible within the theoretical frame works discussed. It allows immigrants to maintain both the cultures satisfactorily. However, this model prescribes the structural and cultural dimensions as two distinct and separate entities. Theoretically this may be possible. While considering the operational dimension, the immigrants may not differentiate these aspects nor agree that attaining either one independent of the other is possible..
It may be noted that in Gordon’s argument, he says structural assimilation is the corner stone and once it is achieved everything else would follow. This is in fact a disputable observation. While reviewing the literature, other theorists have pointed out that, other parts of integration need not necessarily be sequential. In the present study, the researcher proposes to assess whether acculturation is possible without participation in economic and productive enterprise and vice versa.
A third area of observation is in the present context of globalized economy, many researchers feel that a dominant culture with emphasize on economic activity will only survive. At the same time considering the possibility of movements within a transnational space, many new comers may follow either a dual culture or a hybrid culture as suggested by Kuran and Sandholm. However, this depends on the immigrant’s attitudes, perceptions on his/her social capital and cultural sensitivity.
Though the literature gives an abstract idea about racialization and discrimination, south Asian immigrants may have a different story to tell. On one hand there may be feelings of exclusion, oppression by the dominant groups, the researcher anticipates possibility of expressions of internalized oppression, and there may even be stories of oppression from within the immigrant community itself.
There has been a number of studies on ethnic communities and their process of integration into the mainstream of the Canadian social and economic life. However, studies` looking at the perspective of integration in relation to the cultural identity of immigrants are very limited except a few focussing on the immigrant communities from India by Somerville, (2004). She studied the process of identity formation within a transnational social field, specifically examining the second generation of south Indians. But it was limited to the Canadian born children of early immigrants.
Conclusion:
The focus of this research is on recent immigrants to the country who are skilled and highly qualified and facing the reality of integration will be a refreshing exposure. Moreover, no such studies have been reported in relation to the experiences of those immigrants from Kerala who speak Malayalam as their native tongue. Hence, this highly interpretive study is expected to contribute new knowledge on the emerging ethnic and cultural differences within the main stream communities from India. It would help practicing social workers that work with new communities and the marginalized groups.
However, the researcher does not underestimate the limitation of the sample, which may not be cent percent representative.
For social work, this is a relevant area as it fits well within its practice realms of helping individuals for better adaptation, working with marginalized people, fighting oppression, advocacy for social justice etc and some of the issues like social exclusion referred under discussion, therefore opens up new avenues for research and provide new knowledge for practicing social workers and academia. It will help in out-reaching and educating immigrant communities on the current discourse on social inclusion. Though the coverage is small, this study will bring out more insights on individual and collective perceptions of exclusion and strategies for inclusion.
As a larger objective, the researcher expects the study to bring socially isolated people together on common grounds and on the basis of needs and validate their experiences and facilitate a creative and critical reflection. On a wider platform, individualized or personal experiences will be contextualized.








REFERENCES:

Pendakur, Aizlewood, Amanda &, Ravi. (2005). Ethnicity and Social Capital in Canada.
Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal, 37.2: p 77.
Berry, J. W. (1990). Psychology of acculturation. In Berman, J. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation
and Cross-cultural perspectives, 1989, pp. 201-234. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska University Press.
Berry, J.W. (1992) Acculturation and Adaptation in a New Society. In International Migration, Vol.30: pp. 69-85.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5-68.
Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H. and Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural Psychology: Research and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bhatia, S., & Ram, A. (2001). Rethinking acculturation in relation to Diaspora cultures and postcolonial
identities. Human Development, 44, 1-18.
Chatterjee, A., Dasmohapatra, S., & Shakir, (2004) Insurgent Communities: South Asian Construction of Social Inclusion; Council of Agencies Serving South Asians (CASSA), Toronto. Retrieved on-line on 16th Mar, 2006.from www.cassa.on.ca/APG.
Choudhry, U.K. (2001). Uprooting and Resettlement Experiences of South Asian Immigrant Women; Western Journal of Nursing Research, June 2001,Vol. 23, No.4
Diamantaras, D and Swanson, C.E, (2004) Competing Cultures and Output. Philadelphia: Dept of Economics, Temple University. Retrieved on 2nd March 2006 from http://www.lebow.drexel.edu/lainczc/Culture-Diamantaras-Swanson-Nov-2004.pdf.
Encyclopaedia Wikipaedia, (2005). ‘Melting Pot’, Online retrieved on 3rd Dec, 2005 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/meltingpot
Entzinger, H., and Biezveld, R., (2003). Benchmarking in Immigrant Integration; Report of the European
Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations. Erasmus University, Rotterdam.
Faist, T., (2000). The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational Social Spaces; Oxford, Clarendon.
Feng, H, & Balakrishnan, T.R (1996) The Integration of Visible Minorities in Contemporary Canadian Society. Canadian Journal of Sociology, Vol. 21.Iss.3
Fontana, J, (2003) Settlement and Integration: A sense of belonging – "Feeling At Home", report of the Standing committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Retrieved online from www.parl.gc.ca.
Forbes, D. (2005), Canadian Theories of Multi-culturalism. Ethnic, Immigration and Pluralism studies; University of Toronto.Retrieved 20th March, 2006 from
http://www.utoronto.ca/ethnicstudies/Forbes_Multiculturalism.pdf.
Gordon, M. M. (1964) Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion and National origins. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hoskin, M. (1991) New Immigrants and Democratic Society: Minority Integration in Western Democracies: London, Praeger Publishers.
Hyman, I., Yu, N., & Beiser, M. (2000). Post-migration stresses among Southeast Asian refugee youth in
Canada: A research note. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 31, 281-293.
Kazemipur, A., (2004). Social Capital of Immigrants in Canada: Working paper by PCERII, Lethbridge, University of Lethbridge.
Kuran, T. & Sandholm, W.H., 2002. "Cultural integration and its discontents," Working paper 20, Wisconsin Madison - Social Systems.Research Institute, Retrieved on 1st March, 2006, from http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~whs/research/ci.pdf
Laquian, L., Laquain.A. , T.McGee (1999). Silent Debate: Asian Immigration and Racism In Canada, Eds. Vancouver: The University of British Columbia.Institute of Asian Research.
Lazear, E.P, (1999) " Culture and Language". Journal of Political Economy, 107 (6), S95 S126.
Li, P.S. (2002). ‘Social Inclusion of visible minorities and new comers: The articulation of ‘Race’ and racial difference in Canadian Society’ Paper presented at the conference of social development on social inclusion; March 27-28, 2003, Ottawa.
May, D. (2003) ‘Theories of Integration Revisited: Towards an Interactive Model of Integration strategies’ Research paper presented at 6th ESA Conference, Sept- 2003, Spain, Denmark, AMID- Academy for Migration studies in Denmark
Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia (2005) "Acculturation," Retrieved online on
3rd Dec.05 from http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2005 Microsoft Corporation.
Mullaly, B (2002) Challenging Oppression- A Critical Social Work Approach, Oxford, University press. p.59-60.
Nimmagadda, J., & Balagopal, R.P., (2000). Social Work Practice with Asian Immigrants, In Balagopal, R.P, (Ed) Social Work Practice with Immigrants and Refugees, Columbia University Press.
Noguer, M; & Siscart, M., (2003): "Language as a Barrier to International Trade? An Empirical Investigation," New York University typescript New York: Columbia University Press. pp.30-64.
Pennsylvania Ethnic Heritage Studies Center , University of Pittsburgh, (2005)
Immigration - A cultural perspective in Globalization and the New Migration: Retrieved on 03/16/06 from www.ucis.pitt.edu/pehsc/
Ray, B., (2005). Canada: Policy Changes and Integration Challenges in an Increasingly Diverse Society; Migration Information Source. Retrieved on line on 17th March, 2006 from http://www.migrationinformation.org/.
Rubinstein, A. (2000): Economics and Language. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Sam, D. L. and Berry, J. W. (1995). Acculturative stress among young immigrants in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 36, 10-24.
Smart, J. F. & Smart, D. W. (1995). Acculturative stress of Hispanics: Loss and Challenge. Journal of
Counseling and Development, 73, 390-396.
Somerville, K. (2004). The Process of Identity Formation within a Transnational Social Field: An Examination of Second Generation South Indians. Unpublished Research paper, University of Toronto.
Tran, K, Kaddatz, J & Allard, A., (2005) South Asians in Canada: Unity through Diversity, Canadian Social Trends, Statistics Canada Catalogue 11-008, pp.20-25.
Tucci, I., (2005). Explaining Attitudes towards Immigration: New Pieces to the Puzzle.Research paper published by DIW, Berlin and LASMAS idL, Paris
Zangeneh, M., Nouroozifar, M & Kantini, E (2004) Acculturation Stress and Drug Use Among Iranian Youth. Shiraz E-Medical Journal, ISSN: 1735-1391Vol-5,No.3. Retrieved online on 18th March, 2006 from http://semj.sums.ac.ir/

Dynamics of Integration:The Reality

When we look at the process of integration and acculturation with a layman's eye we see the interplay of economic, cultural and social aspects and the attitudes of immigrants and the host society that influence integration.

Culture and Integration:
A community’s culture is defined as a combination of the personal preferences and equilibrium behaviors of its members. According to Kuran and Sandholm, 2005, this is a hybridization process. It is a compromise through individual choice respecting others is a departure from the conventional model based on economic analysis. Conventional flexible models link economic productivity and the culture. Diamantaras and Swanson (2004) have identified a basic culture - a form of human capital that is learnable, expandable and valuable for groups in participating economic enterprise. However, it is independent of technology and that the two cultures incompatible with each other are equally compatible with a productive process. Lazear (1999) equates culture with language and links adoption of culture through the choices made by immigrants to learn English. Rubinstein (2000) also studied the economics of language. In this context, Noguer (2000) and Siscart (2003) empirically examined the magnitude of barriers to trade/production erected by different languages.
However, from the social work point of view, one cannot demand minimum standards in the cultural dimension, other than recognizing every other individuals right to exist and a consensus to deal with the dissent.
Attitudes towards Integration:
The integration of immigrants deals with many issues surrounding the ability of immigrants to adapt culturally and socially to the receiving society. However, it should be seen as a reciprocal process also. According to Tucci, (2005) it is a business like undertaking governed by the principle of reciprocity in which both groups – the immigrants and native population adapt and change. A University of Pittsburgh research documentation explains that immigrants are most likely to adjust well to a new culture when they are not isolated from their culture of origin, when they settle in their new home. As soon as they find an area where people with their cultural background, their social contacts provide a secure environment. From this, they can begin to break into a culture, which was alien, to them.

Acculturation Behavior:
Living between two cultures is associated with a painful rupturing experience (Bhatia and Ram, 2001). Berry, Poortinga, Segall, et.al, (1992) suggest that acculturation may be uneven across different domains of behavior and social life. Hyman, Yu and Beiser, (2000) noted that for immigrants to North America from collectivist south-east Asian cultures, the incompatibility of western values emphasizing self fulfillment, with the traditional pattern of subordinating the self to the interests of the family can be a source of internal conflict.
Acculturative stress can manifest itself in different ways. Sam and Berry (1995) suggest that this may be related to many psychological changes including lowered mental health status, feelings of marginality and alienation, heightened psychosomatic symptom levels and identity confusion. This is perceived as a key area within the traditional helping role of Social work.

Berry (1990), Bhatia & Ram (2001) et.al have recognized two distinct dimensions of immigrant’s response to living in the new culture: (a), the degree to which they open themselves to the host culture – i.e., contact-participation (Berry, 1990) and (b), the degree to which they seek to preserve their native culture – called cultural maintenance (Berry, 1990). These authors emphasize that openness and preservation are understood as separate, independent dimensions in all cases, immigration is a transitional experience. Others perceive the roles they play in a different way. Immigrants however may not be aware of these new roles and perceptions. "For many, suddenly being labeled and treated as a member of an ethnic minority group is a shocking transition" (Zangeneh, Nouroozifar et.al, 2004)

Transnational Identities:
The process of identity formation within a transnational social space studied by Somerville, (2004) among racial minorities grown up within Canada but having ties with India reveals that the second generation creates identities, or move between different identities, within a space that includes people in their parents’country of origin and country of settlement. It should also be noted that maintaining close connections with their country of origin is extremely important to Asian Americans.

Racism and Discrimination and Social Inclusion:

Laquian, Mc Gee et.al (1999) throws light into the fact that there is little exists in the literature that discusses the role of prejudice, discrimination and racism has played in the lives of immigrants. Canadians have also refused to discuss the issues publicly and immigration has not become an issue at the political level. However, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration headed by Joe Fontana M.P, in its 2003 report on Settlement and Integration has acknowledged that "racism and xenophobia are still evident in our society and have a significant impact on new Canadians" and recommended "to promote inclusiveness and a sense of belonging through a public education campaign". It is an accepted fact and therefore new immigrant’s perception on racialization and exclusion are very relevant in learning integration practices.

Social inclusion is used as an analytical tool adopted to understand the reality of marginalization and vulnerability of some segments of society in Canada. Research studies have shown that those facing the greatest challenges of exclusion are immigrants and refugees. Since a major portion of immigrants coming to Canada is from developing countries in south Asia, "a clear connection has begun to emerge in our society between race and level of marginalization". (Ornstein, 2001 cited in Chatterjee, Dasmohapatra et.al 2004, p- 7). Li, (2003) has also shown how does the ‘labeling and categorization of individuals and communities based on race "facilitates social exclusion and hinders social inclusion" (p. 14). There fore it is more important to understand the connection between integration and exclusion resulting from racialization as south Asian communities are being ‘branded’ as one of the largest immigrant communities. Several authors have pointed out cases of oppression of minorities. When "a strong identity is lacking, many cases, lead to an internalization of the dominant group’s stereo typed inferiorized images of subordinate populations"(Young, 1990 cited in Mullaly, 2002.p-65).

Social Capital and Mobility:
Studies have shown that immigrants lag behind the native born Canadians in important aspects of their social capital. They have a smaller social network, with a lower socio economic status, less ethnic diversity-more religious diversity and also their networks are less frequently utilized and have a smaller economic pay off. (Kazemipur, 2004.). Pendakur et.al,(2005) also indicates that immigrants are at a serious disadvantage in terms of social capital.
Hou and Balakrisnan, 1996 examined the differences in social mobility among various ethnic groups in contemporary Canadian society. It compared the entrance status and mobility experiences in relation to ethnic variations, education, occupation, income and the connections between these dimensions of socio-economic status of immigrants. Visible minorities receive less income return from educational and occupational achievements. Though the collective capacity and social capital for economic mobilization of some ethnic groups may be limited, the income inequality on the basis of qualifications is most probably related to discrimination.

Integration Revisited

Looking at integration from a macro perspective, it refers to a characteristic of a social system. There has been a range of definitions explaining integration as ‘assimilation’, ‘social cohesion’ and ‘acculturation’. In a sociological perspective integration is referred as ‘the more a society is integrated, the more closely and the more intensely its constituent parts – groups or individuals relate to one another’. Integration can be perceived from the perspective of groups and individuals. In this research, the term integration is used with a focus on the cultural integration or acculturation, which is explained later on.

Eisenstadt(1954,cited in May,2003) established three significantly different approaches to the issue of integration. ‘Acculturation’, that is concerned with immigrant’s learning of different roles, norms and customs of the absorbing society, ‘personal adjustment’, concerned with the personality, satisfaction, ability to cope with various problems arising out of his new situation and ‘institutional dispersion’, which is concerned with the migrant group as such and its place in the social structure of the absorbing country. Accordingly human social life is a progressive accomplishment.
Gordon(1964) views integration as assimilation, which he differentiates into seven types. Gordon’s models sees assimilation as a uni-dimensional process in which the immigrants gradually shed their old culture and identifications, instead take over the culture of the new society and consequently are gradually admitted into the host society. Gordon concludes that structural assimilation is the cornerstone of assimilation and that once it has occurred, all other types of assimilation would naturally follow. According to another prevailing assumption, ‘all parties involved will abandon certain elements of their culture and identity and retain others, that would merge with other immigrant and non- immigrant cultures and an entirely new culture would develop’. The metaphor ‘melting pot’ is used to describe this process, (Encyclopaedia-Wikipedia, 2005).

Contrasting these models, studies later on revealed that even after several generations, cultural difference between the immigrants and their offsprings and the host society did not disappear totally and at times get reinforced and resulted in community formation to get special attention. This led to a rethinking on the assimilation process, with an emphasis on an additional element of ‘cultural identity’. Henceforth, studies have established that integration into a society is not a uni dimensional process. There is a clear distinction between a structural dimension of integration and a cultural dimension. The former refers to immigrants participation in the major institutions of a society – the labor market, education etc and the latter to the changes in the immigrants cultural orientation and identity.

Integration and Acculturation:
When cultures meet as a result of migration individuals go through a process called acculturation. Acculturation refers to the phenomenon that immigrants gradually take over certain major elements of their surrounding cultural environment without completely abandoning their cultural identity(Entzinger and Biezveld,2003).In this context it is noted that many immigrants actually preserve certain ties with their home country, its culture, religion and with other members of the community as well. Such transnational contacts are greatly facilitated today by Globalization (Faist, 2000).

The acculturation model of Berry,(1992 & 1997 cited in May,2003, Entzinger et.al, 2003) presents a strong theoretical framework of integration. Immigration is a major cause for culture contact, necessitating acculturation. Though there are variations in the factors leading to acculturation, the processes of adaptation are common to most groups. In their daily interactions groups and individuals work out strategies concerning two major issues. First being,‘cultural maintenance’; which means to what extent the cultural identity and characteristics are considered important and how best one strives for its maintenance and the second strategy is ‘contact and participation’; which means the extent to which the immigrants are supposed to get involved with other cultural groups or remain restrained to themselves.

It is interesting to examine how Berry’s (1997) model works. When both the cultural maintenance and contact and participation are considered simultaneously, a framework is generated within which four specific acculturation strategies work. ‘Assimilation’ strategy is used when individuals do not wish to maintain their cultural identity and seek more frequent interaction with other cultures. Contrast to this is the ‘separation’ strategy, where individuals place more value on their own culture and also they wish to avoid mixing with others. Those who adopt an ‘integration’ strategy are highly interested in maintaining their own culture at the same time in equally interacting with other groups in the new culture. A low degree of participation in the new culture and rejection of their own original cultural identity characterize the ‘marginalization’ style. According to Berry, non-dominant groups can freely choose and successfully pursue integration, when the dominant society is open and inclusive in its orientation towards cultural diversity. This provides a broader framework for analyzing the process of adaptation of new comers and how far they have been integrated into the mainstream.

May,(2003) who reviewed the theories of integration has explained that "understanding integration as a complex process.... In the past, though it was believed that integration and acculturation go hand in hand, today it is understood that the relationship between integration and acculturation is much more complex". More recent studies by Nimmagadda & Balgopal, (2000) focussing on South Asian immigrants, analyze the process of integration describes assimilation as the process by which the immigrants blend their home country’s cultural values with the host country’s values. In this context ‘ethnic identity’ is a term they used to refer the preservation of home country’s cultural values within the dominant culture.

Multi-cultural Model:
This model is based on the assumption that immigration is permanent, members are defined as full members of their new society, primarily in terms of their ethnic or national origins. The Canadian multi-culturalism is a social condition racial and ethnic or cultural diversity resulting from immigration, it is a vision that entails individuals to live on an equal footing and it is also a network of policies to manage that diversity (Forbes, 2005). Facilities are created and are open for each and every ethnic community or minorities to preserve and further develop their cultural identity. This Research intends to learn the process of cultural identity and integration of South Asian minority immigrants against the backdrop of Berry’s acculturation model within the Canadian multicultural environment.

When we examine further down, four major domains in the process of integration are identified within the existing literature: (a) Socio-economic integration concerned with labour market participation, (b) Cultural integration concerned with the understanding of core values of the host and own society, perceptions on migrant’s level of assimilation etc, (c) Attitudes towards integration concerned with both the attitude of host society towards immigrant population and immigrants’ perceptions on racism, discrimination, social exclusion, oppression etc.that blocks integration and(d) Political and legal integration concerned with the rights. For operational purposes of this research the study will focus only on the cultural aspects of integration and the attitudes towards integration justifying the objectives.

The integration strategy of Berry is believed to be the fairest of all other styles of acculturation, which involves the acceptance, by both groups to live as culturally different entities. The cultural dimension encompasses one’s attitudes, behaviour, norms, morals, language, religion, eating and dressing habits etc expressed in practice and interaction. In short, it is the life styles. A multi-cultural society according to the theoretical model ensures both equal opportunities for its members (that is the structural dimension) and tolerates and encourages cultural differences (that is part of the cultural dimension). The process by which immigrants change their practice in the cultural dimension is often called ‘adaptation’. Does it really happen? When one makes a critical analysis, the interplay of various factors within the identified domains becomes visible.

Guidelines-Relationship between Cultural Id and Integration

Questionnaire/ Interview Guide

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CULTURAL IDENTITY AND INTEGRATION

Research on the experiences of new comers on their Cultural Identity and Integration into the Canadian social main stream with reference toimmigrants from Kerala
by Jose Varghese, MSW Student, York University, Toronto

1. How long you have been in Canada?
   

• Do you think Canada’s multi-culturalism is a good deal for you and your family to establish a good life in Canada?
  Why?
  
• What is your concept of quality of life in Canada?
  
• What was your expectation about having a social life in Canada?
  Does it remain as a ‘dream’?
  
• Have you ever had a good opportunity to get involved in Canadian social life?
  
• How do you get yourself involved in Canadian Social life?
  Having said that, have you ever felt that you are part of Canadian main-stream?
  

Cultural Identity

• Have you experienced a distinct cultural identity of your own people?
  
• What you think are the distinctive features of that identity?
  What are most important to you when you speak about your cultural identity that you want to retain?
  (While answering this consider your family and children)
  
• Do you feel that those values have a positive impact in constructing an identity of yourself in the new culture?
  
• Do you think that there is a link between your cultural identity and the process of integration in to the social main stream.
  
• What do you do/ involuntarily doing to retain the cultural ID?
  
• Family physician/Kerala Restaurants/food/grocery/films/video rentals music/
  Malayalam news papers/periodicals/TV-Satellite channels/Radio
  Cultural programmes/talent shows for children
  Festival celebrations/parties
  Faith based gatherings/community meetings/church/temple visits
  Informal regular discussions about the changes happening around the state
  
• Do you think that some of these are absolutely essential for making your family
  and social life to be more meaningful?
  
• In other words, do you want to encourage your children learn more about your
  culture, indigenous practices and values?
  
• What do you think about the utility/usefulness of those values and how does it
  help your children to be successful in the Canadian society?
  
• Have you ever represented your culture/community values in an organization
  or at your work place, knowingly revealed your cultural identity?
  (Expressed or even talked positively to the group/sub groups as well)
  
• Having said that, have you ever attempted to voice your concerns arising
  out of your cultural consciousness?
  How was it received?
  
• Do you feel that/ have you ever felt that/ revealing such an identity has a
  negative influence on achieving a total integration into the main stream?
  If you think so, what are the stumbling blocks that prevent one from
  achieving a total integration?
  1
  2
  3
  4
  

Cultural dimension- your approach

• To what extend you are conscious of your culture/values when you talk
  to/present a topic with another member from a different community?
  
• How far you consider the cultural sensitivity of the person you are talking to?
  
• Do you value your personal preferences or a kind of equilibrium behavior?
  
• What is the meaning of multi-culturalism to you in terms of your approach?
  

Attitudes and Behavior

• Do you think the ‘Attitude’ makes a big difference in Integration?
  Whose attitude is more important to you?
  
• Do you distinguish a difference between structural integration and cultural integration?
  Which has a priority for you? Or do you see a chronological connection
  
• Do you think the attitudes of the host society affect your integration positively?
  Or negatively?
  
• If you are culturally safe within your community does it provide you with a
  secure environment for you to break into the new culture?
  
• Do you consider’ living between two cultures’ affect your efficiency and success?
  How does it influence or pressurize your behavior?
  
• Have you ever felt changing from a ‘collectivist’ Asian culture to a society that
  values ‘self-fulfillment’ as a norm to be a more painful and stressful process?
  
• Have you ever felt marginalized?
  
• Have you gone through an Identity Crisis as part of your efforts to get integrated to the main stream?
  
• How does the integration reflect in your behavior within your family?
  
• Have you been experiencing/comfortable with a trans-national identity?
  
• Do you prefer your children to maintain a TN ID?
  
• Have you ever felt xeno-phobia- (fear of strangers)
  Have you ever experienced racism/ discrimination?
  
• Have you felt victimized of skin color/ language / branding as south Asian?
  
• Has this resulted in a feeling of oppression?
  Have you ever witnessed victims of oppression who have internalized oppression in your community?
  

Social Capital and Mobility:

• Do you see a connection between mobilizing social capital and upward mobility
  in your community?
  
• Do you think that having ‘a small social net-work means less accessibility’ true
  within your community?
  
• Have you felt the behavior of the dominant community ‘inclusive’ to
  accommodate the new comers
  
• Have you felt this ‘inclusiveness’ in private gatherings/ social gatherings/ government functions?
  
• Have you felt that a lack of social inclusion as main reason for unsuccessful level of integration?