CHAPTER 3: UNDERSTANDING NETWORKS
4.2. Impact of networks on cultural differences
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.
68
The authors argue that examining changes in the culture of host individuals is important because unlike assimilation theory, which argues that immigrants’ culture has to be done away with and the dominant culture must be practiced, in reality there is a blending of culture when two different cultures interact. Simply put, the dominant culture also imbibes some of the less dominant culture when the two interact; this can be related back to the discussion of hybridity and cosmopolitanism. The authors describe this as
a process of mutual change of individuals and groups of different cultures that come into continuous contact …Acculturation alters the composition of the personal network by increasing its heterogeneity while also affecting the level of structural cohesion, as well-defined groups of players (e.g., well connected compatriots versus host individuals) appear more frequently. All of these changes lead to reorganization in the distribution of support and leverage functions (Dominguez and Maya-Jariego 2008: 122-123).
Understanding the process of acculturation between immigrants and host individuals is important as it informs the structure and nature of the immigrants’ personal networks. The first study on the personal networks of Argentineans, Ecuadorians, Italians and Germans who resided in Seville and Cadiz explored the role of host individuals in the immigrants’
networks. The immigrants in this study, identified an average of 17 members within each of their personal networks, and the host individuals who provided support within these networks made up 45%, with 28.6% of the social support core (Dominguez and Maya-Jariego 2008:
124). In comparison, the German immigrants’ personal network was more heterogeneous as it consisted of more host individuals. The study showed that,
Germans also have the broadest social support networks, with more Spaniard support providers than the other three groups…On the other hand, by comparison, the ethnic composition of Ecuadorians’ and Italians’ networks is more biased towards the endo-group, that is to say, the group of ethnic origin (family and compatriot relationships) (Dominguez and Maya-Jariego 2008:
124).
By implication, the immigrants with more host individuals as members of their personal networks than compatriots obtained more social support than those whose networks
69
comprised of more compatriots than host individuals. Compatriots in this sense refer to fellow immigrants at home or in the host country. Support in this context refers to various forms of assistance provided to immigrants that will enable integration.
However, Dominguez and Maya-Jariego (2008) contend that the roles played by host individuals in immigrants’ personal networks are secondary because they have less centrality than compatriots (Dominguez and Maya-Jariego 2008: 1). The level of centrality among the migrants differed depending on duration of stay. The immigrants were redistributed into four different clusters based on the number of years they had resided in the host country.
According to the authors,
the lowest average centrality was observed in recent and temporal migrants, whereas the highest corresponded to the individuals with more time of residence in Spain... Cluster 1 represents recent migrants, which are more connected and more identified with other compatriots than with Spaniards.
Furthermore, the host culture members have a low centrality in their networks and provide a comparatively low number of types of social support. On the other hand, the respondents classified in Cluster 4 have on average lived in Spain longer and were more likely to express the intention to stay in Spain in the future. They have experienced a longer time of socialization in the new country, and Spaniards play a more important role in their networks, with more centrality, more closeness, and a greater number of types of social support provided. The other two clusters are in between Cluster 1 and Cluster 2, as in a continuum... (Dominguez and Maya-Jariego 2008: 1 and 6).
This is consistent with Lubber et al’s (2001) argument that duration of stay in a host country plays an important role in the structure and composition of personal networks. Dominguez and Maya-Jariego (2008) argue that immigrants have stronger ties with host individuals due to prolonged socialisation and interaction.
The second study conducted by Dominguez and Maya-Jariego (2008) sought to explore the role of host individuals in the personal networks of Latin-American immigrants in Boston. It revealed that host individuals play an important role in immigrants’ personal networks, but this interaction has a dual effect on the host and the immigrants. The study focused on ten
70
HSP – who act as a nexus between immigrants and the host community – and how their functions expose them to acculturation. The authors argue that as social spaces narrow, boundaries between groups diffuse and interchange occurs where culture diverges. In the case of this study, HSP who work with immigrants formed an interface between converging cultures. The study focused on how service providers who are members of the dominant culture (European-Americans) are culturally influenced by the immigrants with whom they work (Dominguez and Maya-Jariego 2008: 8).
The findings showed that prolonged contact with Latin-American immigrants had a great impact on the culture and lifestyles of the service providers. The authors assert that, “the level of acculturation depended on the amount of exposure to Latin-American culture experienced by each host member in the sample” (Dominguez and Maya-Jariego 2008: 10).
The study respondents’ duration of contact with immigrants ranged from five to 25 years.
The sample was categorized into three units based on the duration of contact with Latin American immigrants. These categories include travelers, Frontier Brokers and Residents (Dominguez and Maya-Jariego 2008: 10). Travellers are those that have limited duration of contact with the immigrants. They are called transient service providers who were temporarily exposed to Latin American culture (Dominguez and Maya-Jariego 2008: 11).
Although some of these travellers had worked with immigrants for a long time, this did not significantly impact their culture and lifestyle. This is the case because, “these individuals maintain the Latin-American immigrants at a distance. They visit the Latin-American culture but always temporarily. Travellers experience changes in attitude, behaviour and, to a certain degree, values but do not manifest changes in language or interpersonal relationships”
(Dominguez and Maya-Jariego 2008: 10). The travelers’ limited and bridged contact with Latin American immigrants to some extent changes their perceptions of immigrants which influences their tolerance of differences but does not necessarily influence their personal identity. The authors explain the role that travelers play in the integration of Latin American immigrants and how this influences the nature of their relationship as follows:
the relationship between travelers and immigrants is that of teacher and student, and it manifests a power differential. This power differential maintains distance between the two and creates boundaries that are formally enforced…In fact, in close-knit communities, networks tend to manifest the
71
“strength of strong ties” that lead to a form of “bounded solidarity” and
“enforceable trust” which can restrict and control members of that community’s relationships (Dominguez and Maya-Jariego 2008: 11).
This suggests that the nature of ties between the immigrants and travelers is a state type of tie which is formal and structured. This does not necessarily mean that the host individuals do not play a supportive role in the immigrants’ integration; on the contrary they do. However, this relationship is not convivial as it is based on mutual respect and trust between the two groups. Therefore, as a result of the nature of this tie (the state type) the impact of acculturation on the travellers can be said to be minimal.
The second group of service providers who were referred to as Frontier Brokers had more contact and interaction with the immigrants than the travelers. Frontier Brokers provided a lot of support for the Latin-American immigrants in Boston. In order to do this, they had to have close relationships with immigrants and even include them within their personal networks.
Dominguez and Maya-Jariego (2008: 11) posit that one of the roles played by these Frontier Brokers in immigrants’ networks is to act as a bridge between the two cultures. The Frontier Brokers become the melting pot where differences meet and merge in a diverse community;
they are thus referred to as integrating bridges. Bochner explains the role of integrating bridges as those individuals in the host community who act as “mediating persons, persons who have the ability to act as links between different cultural systems… by introducing, translating, representing and reconciling the cultures to each other” (cited in Dominguez and Maya-Jariego 2008: 11-12). The study showed that due to the kinds of social support provided by the Frontier Brokers to the immigrants, trust was crucial in the relationship between the two groups. They explain that the HSP provided various forms of social support including, for example, social services such as housing and emotional support to ensure the integration of immigrants into Boston (Dominguez and Maya-Jariego 2008: 12). In order to provide these forms of support, they had to have direct and frequent contact and interaction with immigrants and the effect on the Frontier Brokers was a change in their culture and lifestyle. According to the authors, they
continuously worked with immigrants for several years. They have achieved increased sensitivity regarding the plight of immigrants as evidenced by their work to help and incorporate immigrants. They are bilingual, and they have
72
incorporated values and behaviours associated with a substantial understanding of Latin-American culture that allows them to be extremely effective in the work they do. All this involvement and exposure facilitates incorporation of immigrants into their own personal networks. Such change would reflect a high level of acculturation to the immigrant culture made by a representative of the dominant culture. Yet, when doing social network inventories, it became clear that their social relationships consist of other individuals with shared traits (religious and/or sexual orientation) (Dominguez and Maya-Jariego 2008: 12).
Ironically, the support and trust that developed between the Frontier Brokers and the immigrants did not influence the composition of the service providers’ personal networks that mainly consisted of people who shared the same beliefs as them (Dominguez and Maya- Jariego 2008: 12). While they aimed to provide a favourable environment for the integration of immigrants into the Boston community, their interaction with the immigrants changed their cultures. However, this change did not impact on their personal networks as immigrants were absent within these networks.
Lastly, the residents are groups who experienced a greater level of acculturation due to their interaction with immigrants which also had an effect on the composition of their personal networks. Dominguez and Maya-Jariego (2008: 12) describe them as persons who
have immersed themselves in the immigrant culture… They get involved with immigrants through work that initially acts as a boundary between the two groups but ends up being breached through a close relationship that develops with a member of that group. Residents end up with increased sensitivity, adoption of values and behaviours, and experience a radical change in their personal networks.
Residents initially provide support to immigrants, and through their work they develop relationships with them and eventually adopt them into their personal networks. This goes beyond acculturation to the development of strong ties with immigrants. Of all the individuals in the sample, only one who was a resident acculturated and integrated. This resident had the most number of immigrants in her personal network (more than half of the
73
total network population) (Dominguez and Maya-Jariego 2008: 15). These Latin-American immigrants are not just composites of her networks but constitute part of her state type ties.
The resident’s strong ties network was divided into four groups, family, work, friendship and household; immigrants were part of her household, work and friendship ties (Dominguez and Maya-Jariego 2008: 14). Dominguez and Maya-Jariego (2008) thus showed that host individuals interact with immigrants and provide support which enables their integration.
This interaction leads to the development of different types of ties depending on the nature and duration of the contact. More importantly, they argue that immigrants are not the only group who experience a change in culture; individuals within the host community are also influenced by this interaction which translates to a change in their values, lifestyles, cultures and even their personal networks, a process they refer to as acculturation.