Acculturation preferences to be encouraged among minority and majority members
Introduction
There are many factors that determine the social pattern of people across the world. Apparently the world is experiencing crisis resulting from acculturative practices which are being fueled by rapidly growing populations and population movements. Human migration and movement patterns have been cited as being the cause of unparalleled challenges to economic, political and social systems in many countries especially those faced with high immigration rates such as Australia, Canada and the United States (Safdar, Dupuis, Lewis, El-Geledi, & Bourhis, 2008). Among the causes of rampant bi-lateral migrations have been family reunions, refugees and employment. Acculturation in the 21st century has been attributed to globalization which has resulted into the formation of multi-cultural communities and emergence of citizens with Diasporas affiliations to their mother countries which implies that acculturation is increasingly becoming complicated (Brown & Hewstone, 2005). In order to understand acculturation preferences, it becomes prudent to define the term and as stipulated by psychologists. Acculturation is a cultural change that arises from interactions between two or more distinct ethnic groups.
Acculturation is premised on the fact that it attempts to identify ideas defining how the minority members of the society who are in most cases immigrants correlate with the majority members. By so doing, the scope of this paper is made extensive to the extent that it employs empirical analysis of statistical findings relating to preferences stipulated by different cultures across many countries which gives credibility towards pinpointing preferences that should be encouraged among both the majority and minority members. Acculturation preferences define the desire by immigrants as well as the natives to preserve and manage their cultural distinctiveness. On the other hand, the majority groups need to establish their expectations towards the immigrants and their cultural distinctiveness. On a wider scope, contextual data relating to migration trends, the interplay between minority and majority members, as well as their acculturation preferences will be analyzed.
Based on the introduction, it is noticeable that majority groups in countries with high immigration rates such as the United States, Australia and Canada have assimilated multi-cultural ideologies which have made them more likely to accept minority members in spite of their religious, cultural or linguistic inclination. Lara, Gamboa, Kahramanian, Morales & Bautista, (2005) identified that majority members who show acceptance of hybridity and heterogeneity of multiple cultures are most preferable to minority groups who are often faced with acculturation fears. The establishment of a common acculturation preference means that different cultures residing in a given country have a higher chance of sharing in making of a common history which promotes future affiliations between the minority and majority members. Consequently this will lead to modification of the host’s cultures to include multivariate aspects which are bonding to the whole society. By so doing, self-identities of all the members are restructured and subsequently reconstructed to form multicultural or hybrid cultures which help in the attainment of a global culture.
Despite the constant need to form a global culture that will reduce acculturation fears and biases, there are many variations that have jeopardized the process. This statement is supported by evidences derived from several researches identifying diverse acculturation preferences thus deviating us from our previous acculturation preference illustrating the need for formation of a hybrid multivariate culture that can be adopted by the whole world (Skuza, 2007). One instance of a probable global culture is that implicit in Mauritius which has been historically known as the land of immigrants or the emigration country. The country was previously dominated by the Dutch but constant transnational marriages have helped change its uni-dimensional cultural paradigm into a multi-dimensional culture that is accommodative of both the minority and majority members. Seemingly acculturation is a subject matter that is currently receiving much attention and as a result it is being analyzed by governments, academicians, immigrants, host communities and policy makers.
Most Germans as well as the immigrants possessed both the perceived and preferred acculturation preferences. This is because integration between minority and majority members has resulted into much success in the past making it the most encouraged acculturation preference. The minority members in German were more afraid of losing their cultural heritage because of an effect called swamping thus the minorities had a higher urge to maintain their native cultures. On the other hand, the majority preferred that the minorities could abandon their native culture for the host’s culture. To match up the acculturative preference of integration which is the most encouraged, Berry’s model can be used to compare between the immigrants and the hosts view on contact. In Germany, both minority and majority members had a desire to make contact. Further analysis of the preference using the Berry’s Model reveals that, minority groups are more afraid of losing their cultural heritage so they prefer to maintain their cultural identify (Rudmin, 2003). The minorities perceived the majority group as having a lower desire to embrace a foreign culture while the majority alleged that the minorities were less willing to lose their cultural identity.
An analysis of attitudes between the two groups identified that the preference for integration was more dominant among the minority group. Probably this research findings can be attributed to the fact that minority groups are often made to feel marginalized, alienated or rebellious thus they will always participate in activities that bring them closer to the majority groups which are also the hosts (Ensari & Miller, 2002). To some extent it means that the minorities would prefer integration so as to derive that sense of security that is associated with immigrants who portray a liking for the hosts’ communities’ cultural practices. Even though the Germans who represent the host population prefer integration but their reasons of integration are motivated by the need to assimilate the minorities because the Germans did not have a liking for immigrants who maintained their cultural heritage. The attitude shown by Germans during the research reflects the national policies set by the Government of Germany regarding treatment of foreign cultures. The national polices made 40 years ago stipulated that foreigners living in German for a long period of time or immigrants who intend to apply for nationalization as German citizens should consider assimilating the cultural practices of the majority group. This infers that the government is against breeding of a multi-cultured society which makes German a country with a very slow rate of cultural hybridity. From these findings, it is highly likely that integration preference is the most encouraged.
By comparing the historical attitudes portrayed by the Germans in the past, it is rife that the majority groups are slowly becoming inclined towards making German a multicultural society. This is evident with the reality that majority of the hosts (Germans) nowadays prefer cultural integration which is an indicator that their drifting towards multi-culturalism (Rohmann, Piontkowski, & van Randenborgh, 2008). On the other side the preference for integration among the minority is dominant among the youths because they are not maturely socialized into their cultural practices by their parents. This is one reason why youths from the minority members viewed their parents as having a higher desire to maintain their cultural heritage as compared to their children. The parents further had a lower preference for contact. The researcher explained this phenomenon as being tied to the social circles. Whereas the children are free to mingle and associate with children from other minority groups and majority groups while they are at school, the parents’ social circles are limited to their places of work after which they have to attend to their parental duties. Their busy lifestyles limit their conduct with the members of the majority groups therefore they tend to have a negative attitude towards contact and assimilation.
According to a parallel research conducted on youths from minority groups living in Canada, school going children were observed to be in constant contact with the hosts’ children at schools (Gudykunst & Kim, 2003). This forces them to adapt to the hosts society because it is critical in determining their academic performance and success. Because of the need among children to become competent members of their new societies, they easily get adapted to the majority culture and become assimilated into losing their cultural believes and practices. On the other hand, parents to the children from the minority groups in the Canadian schools were observed as being reserved towards assimilating or making contact with the hosts cultural practices because they are loyal to their traditional cultural believes. The same scenario is portrayed in the United States where despite being a multi-cultured society consisting of African-Americans, Asian-Americans in addition to Europeans and Caucasians. These findings can further be discussed from several angles one being the use of contact hypothesis (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).
Navas, García, Sánchez, Rojas, Pumares & Fernandez, (2005) clarified that the contact hypothesis asserts that persistent contact between the minority and majority groups has the general effect of reducing cultural prejudice. This is because of the generational gaps that diminish with time. Psychologists support the fact that children have a faster learning curve as compared to adults thus the second or third generation of the immigrants children are likely to be fully assimilated into cultural practices of the hosts or majority groups because they are constantly in touch especially at schools. On the other side, their parents tend to interact with first generation immigrants who still hold onto their authentic cultural practices making it hard to acculturate them. The only problem why the contact hypothesis might not be applicable is the fact that schools are not a perfect place for cultural exchange because they rarely meet the optimal conditions to facilitate diffusion of cultures from either the minority group to the majority or the vice versa. There also emanates discrepancies relating to there being homogeneous and multiethnic schools in most countries across the globe. Such discrepancies are likely to influence the attitude and furthermore the acculturation preferences exhibited by both the children and their parents making them rebellious to contact as a way of self-protection.
Another research conducted by Hanna Zagefka, Linda Tip, Roberto Gonzalez, Rupert Brown and Marco Cinnirella in their journal ‘Predictors of majority members’ acculturation preferences: experimental evidence’ supported that members from the minority groups had the acculturative preference for integration or cultural adoption whereby the majority groups had to increase their support aimed at acculturating the minority members. The research supports the findings presented in the previous chapter supporting that the minority members had the desire of maintaining their traditional culture thus their willingness to assimilate the culture of the majority group and adopt it is dependent on the level of prejudice exhibited by the hosts. This is because analysis conducted to establish how cultural prejudice affected perception towards acculturation preferences established that respondents to the questionnaires showed preference for majority groups that had low prejudice than the hosts who were high on prejudice. Likewise the immigrants or the minority groups had the belief that hosts who had low prejudice were bound to accommodate minority members without bias. This journal therefore suggests that the integration and assimilation acculturative preferences are the most preferred among minority and majority members respectively.
Another journal ‘Antecedents and consequences of acculturation preferences of non-indigenous Chileans in relation to an indigenous minority: Longitudinal survey evidence’ written by joint efforts from Hanna, Rupert and Roberto, (2009) illustrate that process of determining between perceived and preferred acculturation preferences should be guided by an exploratory analysis of the relationship the preference selected and the intergroup relationship. Measuring the valence of such relations could help the researcher in identifying the negative impacts or issues associated with contact and assimilation of the host’s cultural practices. An example is given of the Mapuche Community found in Chile. The Mapuche community represents the largest and the most significant cultural group in Chile courtesy of their being deeply rooted to indigenous cultural practices. Their efforts to protect their territory as well as their traditional cultural beliefs and practice make them a perfect sample for the study relating to acculturation preferences. After encroachment of their culture in the 1880’s Mapuche community has since lost crucial aspects of their traditions (Matera, Stefanile & Brown, 2011). They were the last group of people to be subjugated into forced colonialism in South America and this has made them to suffer social effects arising from acculturation. Apparently their negative attitude towards minority groups is influenced by their mistreatment which has made them to lose jobs, rights to ownership of their ancestral lands, appalling educational services as well as health facilities and worse still they have lost their authentic cultures because of multi-ethnic groups of immigrants that inhabited the area as colonialists (Verkuyten, 2010).
Because of their detachment from globalization and prejudiced attitude towards acculturation, the community has suffered discrimination which has contributed to high levels of unemployment and persistent use of drugs especially alcohol. Furthermore it the immigrants who now represent the majority members are violating the indigenous inhabitants of their land which makes them violent towards immigrants (Sam & Berry, 2010). The Mapuche community is among the few indigenous communities suffering in silence as their cultures are swamped by immigrants who have exposed them to suffer historical injustices. As a result the Mapuche community has a higher perceived acculturation preference. According to Hanna Zagefka, Rupert Brown and Roberto Gonzalez, this attitude is encouraged among the host community because their rights, freedoms and cultural heritage have been encroached against their will. There is apparent support that cultural integration should be a spontaneous process that does not jeopardize of infringe pain into the hosting community. This is to mean that the Mapuche are suffering from cultural shock which might be hard to recover from because of their being forced into colonialism and their mistreatment by non-indigenous groups. Further support for perceived acculturation preferences is implied by the Chilean government through its formation of a special committee aimed at improving the livelihood of the Mapuche by helping them redefine their cultural beliefs and traditions (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2004).
Analyzing the place that has been taken by the Mapuche community in the Chilean society using Berry’s acculturation model illustrates the acculturation preferences exhibited by immigrants towards the host community. According to the model, it was identified that the immigrants who encroached the land previously inhabited by the Mapuche community had the desire to maintain their authentic culture despite their appreciation for contact and assimilation of the hosts’ culture (Maisonneuve & Testé, 2007). Combining contact and cultural maintenance results into a wide array of acculturation preferences among them being integration, separation, assimilation and marginalization. The acculturation preference of integration among the Mapuche of Chile could be encouraged especially for the minority communities as a way of helping the Mapuche preserve their authentic ethnicity and cultural identity in spite of being undermined by majority groups. The second preference of assimilation could be encouraged because the minority members do not prefer abandoning their cultural practices even though they are at liberty to make contact with other communities and exchange ideologies that might be helpful in reforming their interaction systems. Additionally there is the risk of minority groups refusing to make contact with the majority groups. This is implicit among the Mapuche because their attitude has turned to aggression against other communities that encroached their land. To this end it becomes hard to assimilate them because the minority community is more concern about identifying their lost cultural identity thus the preference that comes in is that of separation which is the third preference (Simon & Ruhs, 2008).
Hanna Zagefka, Rupert Brown and Roberto Gonzalez state that the fourth acculturation preference is marginalization (Zhou, 2007). This preference occurs in rare cases which is not applicable to the Mapuche community but in extreme cases, the minority community might decide to reject both their original cultures as well as those cultures of the majority thus they come up with a marginalized culture that is nether inclined to their previous culture or the majority cultural practices. The research implied that of the four acculturation preferences, integration of cultures is the best because it combines the good cultural practices from both the minority and majority communities making the resultant culture easier to adopt by both communities. Psychologists further support that the acculturation preference for integration is healthy for psycho-social growth on the newly developed culture which also adds up to forming a global culture thus it should be encouraged. The preference of integration is further supported by Phinney, Sam, Vedder & Berry, (2006) who ascertained that the integration makes a perfect psychological adaptation which has the least acculturative stress among the minority culture. The most intriguing paradigm presented in the journal is that cultural practices of the Mapuche people are threatened by extinction because of the acculturation stress that they have been forced into (Alexander, 2003). Their change of attitude towards cultural integration has triggered researchers into focusing on the host communities which are at risk of being extinct. In such a case the focus has been shifted from analyzing the acculturation preferences of the immigrant but has been focused on studying the hosts.
Conclusion
Owing to the psychological impacts created by acculturation on both the minority and majority members in society, conducting a study on acculturation preferences becomes vital in explaining the various preferences ranging from integration, separation, assimilation and marginalization. Integration preference is the most preferred thus encouraged by many psychologists. Consequently many factors determine the social pattern taken by people in a given community among them being economic, political and social systems which are further challenged by human migration and movement patterns. In the recent past Australia, Canada and the United States have experienced an influx of immigrants due to bi-lateral migrations. Supported by other journals and articles, it becomes rife that the integration preference is the most preferred by the majority members while the minority prefers marginalization preferences as a way of preserving their cultures. Consequently children and youths have a high preference for assimilation than their parents making the whole idea of acculturation preferences dependent on the age and the hospitality of the majority members of a given society.
References
Alexander, V.D. (2003). The Cultural Diamond – The Production of Culture. “Sociology of the arts: exploring fine and popular forms. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, p. 162.
Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255–343.
Ensari, N., & Miller, N. (2002). The out-group must not be so bad after all: The effects of disclosure, typicality, and salience on intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 313–329.
Gudykunst, W. & Kim, Y. (2003). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. (4th Ed). New York: McGraw Hill.
Hanna, H., Brown, R., & Gonzalez, R. (2009). Antecedents and consequences of acculturation preferences of non-indigenous Chileans in relation to an indigenous minority: Longitudinal survey evidence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 558–575.
Lara, M., Gamboa, C., Kahramanian, M.I., Morales, L.S., & Bautista, D.E.H. (2005) Acculturation and Latino Health in the United States: A Review of the Literature and its Sociopolitical Context Annual Review of Public Health. 26. 367
Maisonneuve, C., & Testé, B. (2007). Acculturation preferences of a host community: The effects of immigrant acculturation strategies on evaluations and impression formation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 669–688.
Matera, C., Stefanile, C., & Brown, R. (2011). The role of immigrant acculturation preferences and generational status in determining majority intergroup attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 776–785.
Navas, M., García, M.C., Sánchez, J., Rojas, A.J., Pumares, P., & Fernandez, J.S. (2005). Relative acculturation extended model: New contributions with regard to the study of acculturation. “International Journal of Intercultural Relations” 29, 28-29
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.
Phinney, S., Sam, D. L., Vedder, P. & Berry, J.W. (2006). Immigrant Youth: Acculturation, Identity, and Adaptation “Applied Psychology” 55(3), 303-332
Rohmann, A., Piontkowski, U., & van Randenborgh, A. (2008). When attitudes do not fit: Discordance of acculturation attitudes as an antecedent of intergroup threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 337–352
Rudmin, F.W. (2003). Critical History of the Acculturation Psychology of Assimilation, Separation, Integration, and Marginalization, Review of General Psychology 7(1) 3
Safdar, S., Dupuis, D. R., Lewis, R. J., El-Geledi, S., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2008). Social axioms and acculturation orientations of English Canadians toward British and Arab Muslim immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 415–426.
Sam, D.L. & Berry, J.W. (2010). Acculturation : When Individuals and Groups of Different Cultural Backgrounds Meet, Perspectives on Psychological Science 5(4). 472
Simon, B., & Ruhs, D. (2008). Identity and politicization among Turkish migrants in Germany: The role of dual identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1354–1366.
Skuza, J.A. (2007). Humanizing the Understanding of Acculturation Experience with Phenomenology. “Human Studies”, 30(4) 451-463.
Tropp, L., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2004). Intergroup contact and the central role of affect in intergroup prejudice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verkuyten, M. (2010). Assimilation ideology and situational well-being among ethnic minority members. New York: Russell Sage.
Zhou, M. (2007). Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and Recent Research on the New Second Generation. “International Migration Review” 31(4). 975-1008.
