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.
posted by jova, 6:07 AM link 0 comments

Theories of 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.