CHAPTER 3: UNDERSTANDING NETWORKS
3.6. Conclusion
61
It is important at this juncture to note that these two dimensions of social capital, that is bonding and bridging, are not necessarily exclusive of each other. Although different, they sometimes overlap. As Staveren and Knorringa (2008: 115) explain,
the two categories of social capital are not mutually exclusive. An economy needs both types of social capital. It requires a minimum level of bonding social capital for bridging social capital to emerge. Bonding social capital generates externalities for individual agents’ behaviour from group practices, creating and reproducing certain social capabilities, for example, the adherence to social norms, which may include mutual help, trustworthiness, sociability, solidarity, loyalty and responsibility, as well as knowledge sharing. Bridging social capital builds on these social capabilities – it will not just arise by itself in a society without any experience of close bonds between people in families, friendships, associations and organizations. The relationship between the two however, is not straightforward; the two levels of social capital seem to be partly trade-offs and partly supporting each other.
Simply put, a friend who is a work colleague could share both dimensions of social capital.
Therefore categorizing them as exclusive of each other may be problematic. Although it is possible for each dimension to exist in isolation, in certain cases these two capitals complement each other.
62
This chapter assessed the various ideas behind social network theories. It explained the self- interest theory that regards networks as tools that migrants can use for integration. Embedded within this theory is social capital that enables conviviality during intergroup contact. The following chapter reviews other studies that expand on how the concepts and ideas employed in network theory link to the integration of migrants in host communities.
63
CHAPTER 4: THE ROLE OF NETWORKS IN MIGRANTS’ INTEGRATION INTO HOST COMMUNITIES
Migrants find themselves in different kinds of networks that are important for their integration into the host community. For example, they benefit from belonging to transnational networks between their home and host countries, as well as home associations in their host countries. A number of studies have explored these linkages. Mercer et al (2009) describe how Cameroonian and Tanzanian “home associations” in the diaspora have contributed to the development of their sending countries. Singh and Sausi (2010) explore the socio-economic benefits Nigerian migrants in Durban accrue from being members of indigenous networks, also referred to as home town associations. Indigenous networks provide bonding capital within minorities with shared nationalities and ethnicities. Social networks are extremely important in supporting migrants in their host communities. They also play a crucial role in integrating migrants into the host community by orientating newcomers on how to get by in a strange environment and introducing them to members of the host community. However, the focus of this study is the actual ties that form between migrant populations and the host community – in effect across national and ethnic boundaries. It also explores the role of networks in providing bridging capital among migrants and members of their host communities.
Network ties between migrants and members of the host community are integral in integrating migrants into the host community (Porus 2011). The host community plays a fundamental role in the integration of migrants either through bonding or bridging. Miguel and Tranmer (2009: 2) argue that “it is not just the existence of support relationships with people from the same culture, but also with people from the receiving culture that best predict successful social integration”. Therefore, in analysing their integration into their host countries, it is important to investigate migrants’ ties with members of host societies.
To buttress this argument, this chapter examines four studies on the role of networks in the integration of migrants into their host communities in Spain, the United States, and South Africa. It is acknowledged that these case studies are predominantly of Northern countries.
This is due to the fact that very few studies have been conducted on migrants’ networks with members of host communities in Africa. Most of the studies on African migrants’ networks
64
focus on ties within migrant communities (see Mercer et al 2009; Singh and Sausi 2010). The first study that was carried out by Lubber et al (2001) examines the role of network ties in the integration of migrants in a host community in Spain and identifies the nature and characteristics of these ties. The second study by Dominguez and Maya-Jariego (2008) explores how network ties between migrants and members of a host community in Boston in the United States influence their various cultures in both directions. The third study by Miguel and Tranmer (2009) shows how migrants create network ties with members of a host community in Spain to enable their integration, and identifies the various factors that influenced the formation of these ties. The final study by Kirshner (2012) looks at how African migrants in South Africa used social bridging capital to develop network ties and integrate into their host community.
4.1. Nature and characteristics of network ties and their impact on migrants’ integration
Lubber et al (2001) explored the role and nature of personal networks in the integration of 25 Argentinean migrants in Spain and how the role and nature of these networks evolved over time. The authors (2001: 3) note that “the process of reconstructing the network in the host country both reflects and influences the process of integration and psychological adaptation”.
This study was interested in the evolving character of the personal networks of migrants as a result of the ever changing needs of migrants in the host society across time. Migrants’
networks have to be reconstructed and ties have to change in order to cater for changing needs, and this in turn affects their integration into the host society. They argue that
“international migration disrupts personal networks, as it alters the individual needs of the migrating actor and the ability of his or her network members to fulfil these needs” (Lubber et al 2001: 93). In order to capture how these networks evolved, a longitudinal network analysis was carried out over a period of five years.
Lubber et al (2001) found that, in investigating migrants’ integration in their host communities, it is important to take into cognizance their place of origin as this influenced such integration. They categorized the members of the networks into four groups based on their nationality and origins: “alters who were originally Spanish and lived in Spain (hosts);
alters who were originally Argentinean but lived in Spain (fellows), alters who were
65
originally Argentinean and lived in Argentina (originals), and others (transnationals)”
(Lubber et al 2001: 96). Furthermore, they constructed a general model of the phases of networks created by immigrants in the host community. In the first phase, immigrants develop networks that comprise of mostly kin members and other immigrants and interaction or ties with members of the host community are unusual (Lubber et al 2001: 94). This is expected as immigrants are new to the host community and have little or no contact with members of this community. They are likely to rely more on their kin members or fellow migrants for social support and information on how to settle in the host community. In the second phase, immigrants are more likely to develop ties with members of the host community and interaction or communication increases as a result of contact in the work place, neighborhood, schools and other social settings (Lubber et al 2001: 94). It is assumed that immigrants will have more dealings with members of the host community because they would have settled in and be involved in the social settings of this community. Some may attend churches and schools, or participate in sports and they may also have members of the host community as neighbours. Geographical and social proximity increases the chances of relations and contact between the immigrants and members of the host community. The authors note that, in the second stage,
the number of contacts in the new place of residence gradually increases.
Consequently, new clusters appear (consisting of fellow migrants, the transnational community, and nationals from the country of residence) and the heterogeneity of the network increases. At the same time, we expected that the number of contacts in the country of origin decreases, as immigrants end their distant weak ties (Lubber et al 2001: 94).
Increased contact with members of the host community has a dual effect on the nature of the personal networks formed by immigrants. While it increases the number of members of the host community within their networks, it also decreases the numbers of ties with kin members. The authors refer to these kin ties as “distant weak ties”. It is thus assumed that at this stage, relations with kin members and members of sending countries weaken. During the final stage, they assert that there is great interconnectedness between the different groups of people with a greater numbers of ties and relations. They argue that greater integration can be expected during this stage as relations between the immigrants and members of the host society are expected to increase. However, this is not a given as certain factors such as segregation in social settings may hinder this process (Lubber et al 2001: 94).
66
The findings of this study revealed two different patterns of how the Argentineans’ personal networks evolved. They showed that, among a few Argentinean immigrants, the ties between kinship members strengthened over time as a result of marrying an Argentinean which rejuvenated kinship ties in Argentina and Spain, taking up employment in a family business or sharing recreational activities like soccer with fellow Argentinians (Lubber et al 2001: 94).
All these factors increased relations with kinship members and rather than distant weak ties with kin members, ties were strengthened. There was also a group of Argentinians whose network structure remained the same over time. The study found that the stability of the network created by this group was attributed to stable marriages. Even where old ties were replaced by new ties, this group of immigrants maintained the nature of their personal ties.
The study further argues that this was possibly due to transitivity, which occurs when people within a network share common friends and therefore, when a person loses a contact, he or she simply replaces them with another person from social gatherings which are a regular pool from which to source friends. Among the endogenous reasons for acquiring new contacts or losing old ones without changing the proportion of Spaniards, fellow migrants, alters in the country of origin, and transnationals, the most important was transitivity, which substituted former acquaintances with the same role. Ten respondents indicated that partners, family members, or friends of friends became their own network members over time. Life cycle related ceremonies such as birthday parties and funerals can develop new contacts of a certain class (Lubber et al 2001: 95-96).
Another group of Argentinian immigrants’ networks was consistent with the model. The network of 13 Argentinian immigrants evolved over time to become a network of more Spaniards and less kin members and Argentinians (Lubber et al 2001: 96). The findings of the study showed that immigrants had increased ties and contact with Spaniards. This was due to various factors and activities which include marriage, the study environment, social activities such as music festivals, and a shared neighbourhood, amongst other things (Lubber et al 2001: 96). These factors stimulated integration among the immigrants. In a setting where exchanges are unavoidable and unrestrictive such as in social and academic settings, there is bound to be some form of integration between immigrants and their hosts.
67
In addition, the study explored how the socio-demographic characteristics of the immigrants, which include gender, age, occupation and marital status, influence the formation and nature of networks between the Argentinean immigrants and the Spaniards. The findings showed that these demographic characteristics did not influence the strength of network ties among the groups; instead, factors such as the characteristics of the ties had more influence. It notes that, “the stability of ties could not be explained by ego characteristics, such as length of residence, age, gender and marital status…, relational characteristics appeared to be better predictors. First, strong ties, as measured by ego’s feelings of closeness to alter, their frequency of contact, and the centrality of the alter in the personal network was more consistent” (Lubber et al 2001: 102). The three factors cited were the main determinants of the strength of the ties between the Argentinean immigrants and Spaniards and influenced the formation of state types or event types of networks and their duration.
In summary, Lubber et al (2001) showed that immigrants’ social networks are not static but ever changing and evolve based on the duration of their stay in the host community. They also contend that the development and nature of networks between migrants and members of the host community can be influenced by certain socio-economic factors which include education, gender and nationality. They therefore conclude that social networks are very important for the integration of migrants as they enable the development of relationships and interaction between migrants and members of the host community which can be supportive of the migrants. Furthermore, these relationships do not have to be affective ties.