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.