CHAPTER 2: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MIGRANTS AND THE HOST
2.2. Assimilation
The notion of assimilation was expanded by the Chicago integration school of thought in the 1920s. It sought to explain intergroup relations in America in the context of cities with growing populations due to immigration. Park argues that difference and diversity are inevitable but that, at some point, diversity will merge into a melting pot. He contends that for many Americans, the notion of a homogeneous community, where differences are non- existent is becoming a mirage due to migration and urbanization. He adds that the community is divided into two groups of people, the host community that is already in a place, and new arrivals, sometimes called guests (Park 1935 cited in Rex and Mason 1986:
13). These recent arrivals introduce differences and diversities into the percieved uniformity of the host community. Assimilation occurs when the socio-cultural differences disappear and migrants adopt the culture of the host community. Rather than implement policies that ensure their exclusion, assimilation allows for migrants’ incorporation into the host community on condition that they discard their socio-cultural identity and adopt that of the host community.
18
Emerson explains that assimilation is a process whereby the “minority immigrant group has totally blended in with the landscape of the country of adoption – in terms of citizenship and mastery of the language, and as a matter of attitudes and perceived identity..., and is perceived by the population of the host nation as one of us” (2011: 21). In this case difference is treated as an obstacle to integration and adopting the culture of the host in order to preserve the community’s homogeneity enables immigrants’ integration. This paints the host community as a unified homogenous core that immigrants who exist within the periphery can be part of if they decide to adopt the core’s character. Therefore, the onus falls on immigrants, which is why Castle describes it as “…a one-sided process of adaptation in which migrants are expected to give up distinctive linguistic, cultural and social characteristics and become indistinguishable from the majority population” (1998: 247).
Thus, the adoption of the hosts’ culture and behaviour is the prerequisite for incorporation and integration. This could be an unforced process (i.e., one that simply happens over time) or a deliberate strategy led by the authorities, possibly in alliance with dominant groups.
Assimilation as an unforced process can take two forms, classical straight-line or segmented.
Straight-line assimilation connotes that, over time, migrants continuously adopt the characteristics of the host community. This model assumes that the host identity is dominant and can therefore neutralise the differences of the migrants. Scholars like Warner and Srole (cited in Coates 2006: 4) assume that migrants in the United States will eventually absorb their hosts’ identities over time. Chin (2012) describes straight-line assimilation as not only continuous and progressive but also irreversible over a long period of time. Simply put, over time, migrants’ identities will be socio-culturally absorbed into the identity of the dominant host and homogeneity may be achieved in future generations due to continuous contact and interaction with host members. This is likened to a ‘melting pot’ where all differences blend with the dominant identity. As Chin (2012: 20) explains, it does not provide for “alternative paths for success that involve maintaining roots to an ethnic identity or community”, among others. It was this shortcoming that gave birth to the segmented assimilation model.
The segmented assimilation model does not criticize the principles of assimilation but questions whether it is indeed a continuous and irreversible process and contends that migrants assimilate differently and not necessarily through one path. Rather than viewing
19
assimilation as a progressive and continuous process where migrants’ differences ultimately dissolve as they become more like the host, protagonists of segmented assimilation argue that there are other paths through which migrants assimilate. The host community is not a homogeneous society but is segmented; Chin (2012: 4) explains that it is divided into various racial groups and classes, and migrants’ cannot all achieve uniform assimilation. Using American society as a case study, Xie and Greenman (2011: 969) note that there is more than one way of being American which straight line assimilation does not take into consideration.
Segmented assimilation is therefore the “diverse patterns of adaptation whereby immigrant groups differentially adopt the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of divergent cultural groups”
(Abraido-Lanza et al 2006: 1344). This anomaly was not addressed by the classical theory.
Brown and Bean (2006: 6) argue that “assimilation does appear to elude some immigrants' descendants, even as late as the third generation. However, uneven patterns of convergence do not necessarily indicate lack of assimilation, but rather may reflect a ‘bumpy’ rather than straight-line course”.
Furthermore, using American society as a point of reference, various scholars have categorized these “bumpy” and “straight-line courses” into three paths (Portes and Zhou 1993; Xie and Greenman 2011). Path I is consistent with classical views on assimilation. Xie and Greenman (2011) describe it as conventional upward or straight-line assimilation. It is referred to as “upward mobility” because migrants become assimilated into the middle class of American society. Path II is described as “downward mobility” because migrants become assimilated into the urban underclass (Xie and Greenman 2005: 3). In Paths 1 and 2, migrants do away with their differences but they assimilate into two segments differentiated by two divergent outcomes based on economic status or class. The third path is quite different in terms of removing differences. According to Xie and Greenman (2005: 4), “Path III is distinguished from Paths I and II by process, specifically whether assimilation has been partial or complete”. In this case, migrants do not do away with their differences but also adopt the culture of the host community. For example, Weaver (2010: 18) suggests that migrants “attain upward mobility by way of retaining ethnic ties and characteristics”.
Therefore, the process of assimilation in this path does not occur in totality. These paths explain various scenarios for being assimilated into the host community.
20
Assimilation can be a deliberate strategy by policy-makers to do away with migrants’
differences. Portes and Rumbaut (2001) draw attention to the “context of reception” that has not only to do with the attitude or reception of the host community, but the structures and legislation that influence migrants’ assimilation. It includes immigration policies and legislation which influence members of the host society’s attitudes, stereotypes and prejudice towards immigrants and their differences (Portes and Zhou 1993). For instance, “until the 1950s, Australia used a policy of migrant assimilation. This implied that immigrants entering a host country had the obligation to shed their ‘cultural baggage’ and to undergo a supposed straightforward adaptation process until their ethnic heritage was virtually unnoticeable”
(Lewins 2001 cited in Coates 2012: 2). Prior to this, the French colonialists adapted this policy in their various African colonies. Through the implementation of the French Assimilation policy, various African subjects whose culture was seen as subordinate to that of the French were allowed to attain not just the political and civic rights of the French but the French identity if they renounced their culture (Idowu 1969). The aim was to achieve a French monoculture or homogeneity in the various colonies.
In short, assimilationist approaches, whether as a process or policy, see migrants’ differences as a problem to the host society and attempt to manage it by migrants assuming the social behaviours and attitudes of the hosts. A host community that adopts assimilation as a strategy to integrate migrants aims to sustain a socio-culturally homogeneous society, which sees differences as a threat to the unified cultural fabric of the community. As Vani and John (2009: 34) put it, “the aim of assimilation is a monocultural, perhaps even a monofaith, society”. Assimilation is closely linked and can give rise to xenophobia and vice versa. Since xenophobia is the fear and repulsion of diversity, such perceptions held by host members may motivate their desire for migrants to abandon their differences and adopt the host community’s way of life. For instance, during the colonial era, the French granted Senegalese natives French citizenship as long as they were willing to abandon their culture and adopt that of the French (Lambert 1993: 241). By implication, assimilation can become one of the consequences of xenophobia even if unintended. This is so because some forms of assimilation are mainly led by immigrants themselves who find it expedient to consciously adapt to the society, or end up doing so unconsciously over generations because those who grow up in the new society learn its language, beliefs and norms as children. Similarly,
21
xenophobia can be linked to exclusion as the failure to assimilate would ultimately lead to exclusion.
However, migrants’ assimilation into the culture of the host community does not guarantee inclusion. Indeed, in some cases, it fuels exclusion. Citing the West African experience, Adida (2014) notes that assimilation protects migrants’ from state policing, but not other spheres of immigrant policing which include members of the host community. While assimilation legally integrates migrants into the geographic space, it may exclude them from the social space. She argues further that
the implications of cultural similarity between immigrants and hosts –- cultural overlap – are thus threatening to an indigenous merchant who wants to limit immigrant access to indigenous networks and benefits in the competition for scarce resources… Consequently, high-overlap immigrants may face exclusion because of their shared cultural repertoires with their hosts (Adida 2014: 13).
Therefore, as discussed in Chapter four of this study, assimilation enables migrants to develop networks as a tool to accrue social benefits. This enables them to compete with host members; it is for this reason that migrants who have assimilated experience exclusion from the host community.
Both assimilation and differential exclusion seek to do away with differences but while differential exclusion aims to protect the cultural character of the host by discouraging complete integration, assimilation permits integration, although with the condition of adopting the character of the host society. One of the commonalities of these bifurcated approaches to dealing with social difference (exclusion and assimilation) is the assumption of the homogeneity of a host community. This notion is flawed and exaggerated. Van Krieken (2012: 501-502) argues that one of the problems with both schools of thought is the presumption that a host society is “an already integrated part of the society” without taking into cognizance that “the social fabric, structure and dynamics of a society needs to have at least something to say about the lines of conflict which divide it…”. Bauman (2001: 2-3) describes the ideal of a community which is problem free as “paradise lost”, because in reality an integrated, homogenous, problem-free society does not exist. Therefore,
22
homogeneity is a mirage that does not take differences such as socio-economic distinctions amongst citizens into account.