In
the previous article called “About the theme of this blog…”, the concepts of
segregation, integration and assimilation have been mentioned. Those three
notions are acculturation orientations which individuals are subject to when
living in a foreign country and being confronted to a different culture.
In the following article we will develop more about acculturation orientations analyzing the two different models: Gordon’s unidimensional assimilation model and Berry’s bidimentional model of acculturation.
Anthropologists describe acculturation as “the process of bidirectional change that takes place when two ethnocultural groups come into contact with one another” (Bourhis, Moïse, Perrault, Senécal, 1997).
In the following article we will develop more about acculturation orientations analyzing the two different models: Gordon’s unidimensional assimilation model and Berry’s bidimentional model of acculturation.
Once
the different acculturation orientations explained we see how they can be the
consequences of states policies and have an influence on the country’s attractiveness
for foreigners to live in.
This
is where this article is in accordance this blog topic: Should global cities
adapt to foreigners? And what are the consequences of these adjustments on the
attractiveness of the city for tourists and immigrants?
Anthropologists describe acculturation as “the process of bidirectional change that takes place when two ethnocultural groups come into contact with one another” (Bourhis, Moïse, Perrault, Senécal, 1997).
In opposition to Gordon’s unidimensional
assimilation model (Gordon, 1964), Berry (Berry, 1980) developed a bidimentional
model of acculturation. The distinction between the two theories is that
the unidimensional assimilation model suggests a single directional change
process in which immigrants assimilate the local culture at the cost of losing
their own whereas the bidimentional models consider that heritage and host
culture have to be assessed separately and be presented “as independent
dimensions rather than as extreme points of a single bipolar continuum” (Bourhis, Moïse, Perrault, Senécal, 1997).
To illustrate Gordon’s
theory, we sketched it as below:
Whereas, Berry’s
bidimensional acculturation model is represented as the table below:
According to this
model, integration is an
acculturation orientation where immigrants both maintain their own cultural
identity and adopt the local one. On the opposite, marginalization happens when neither the heritage culture nor the
host one is taken on by an individual.
Assimilation is present when the immigrant
entirely takes over the local cultural identity, losing its birth one, whereas separation occurs when the individual
maintain its cultural identity and do not adopt the host culture.
Bourhis
et al. developed Berry’s model into the interactive
acculturation model (IAM). The significant difference between the previous
two acculturation models is that the IAM involves the reaction of the host
population towards immigrants because locals are also changed by the presence
of culturally distinctive individuals (Taft, 1953).
That
is why a second table is part of this theory, where this time the questions
(“Is it considered to be value to maintain cultural identity and
characteristics [dimension 1]/to maintain relationship with other groups
[dimension 2]?”) about the two dimensions are asked to locals and not
immigrants:
According
to this model, integration is an
orientation that implies that the host community values a stable biculturalism
amongst immigrant group. Assimilation
suggests that over time, locals will consider immigrants as members of the host
community in their own right. The segregation
orientation means that the host community does not wish to integrate
immigrants or establish cross-cultural contacts. Locals would be in favor of
keeping separate the different communities. Exclusionist orientation happens when the host community denies
immigrants’ freedom to maintain their own cultural identity or to adopt the
local one. It is usually against immigration and would be in favor for it to
stop.
The
individualist orientation is not in
favor of maintaining nor adopting the heritage or host cultural identity since
members of this orientation define themselves as individuals rather than as
part of a group. To individualists, personal characteristics prevail over
cultural identity. According to them, the success of their acculturation won’t
be related to those two dimensions.
The
next part of the interactive acculturation model suggests that depending on the
immigrant and host community acculturation orientations, conflicting situations
may happen.
The article “Towards an interactive
acculturation model: a social psychological approach” (Bourhis, Moïse, Perrault, Senécal, 1997) tries
to demonstrate the role, institutional policies have in foreigners’
acculturation. This responsibility is very important as it has implications on
individuals’ acculturation orientations and therefor on the harmony of the
society.
The diagram below retrieved from the article
illustrates the relations between state integration and immigration policies,
acculturation orientations and relational outcomes within the society:
“State immigration and integration
policies as they relate to the acculturation orientations of immigrants’
community members and dominant host majority members” (Bourhis, Moïse, Perrault,
Senécal, 1997).
What
is most interesting to us, relatively to this blog’s main topic, are the
implications of state integration policies on individuals’ acculturation
orientations. Those policies “consist of approaches and measure adopted by
state agencies to help immigrants integrate within the host society [… and]
foster host community acceptance of immigrants” (Bourhis, Moïse, Perrault,
Senécal, 1997).
This
blog is trying to identify how global cities adapt to foreign cultures and make
their environment welcoming in order to attract or retain foreigners. The article
analyzed above and below show that institutional policies and accommodations
put it place do influence the acculturation of individuals which will have an
impact on the attractiveness of some cities for tourists, expatriates and
immigrants.
As
we can see on the illustration above, state integration policies have been
split into 4 categories: pluralism ideology, civic ideology, assimilation
ideology, republican ideology and ethnist ideology.
Those
5 ideologies share a fundamental premise: the modern state expects immigrant to
adopt public values of the host country (commitment to democratic ideals,
adherence to the Civil and Criminal code, adherence to values expressed in
Human Rights Charters and Constitution of the state).
The
pluralism ideology supports the idea
that the state cannot control or rule individuals’ private values (language,
cultural activities, religion, freedom of association in politics, economics
and leisure). The citizens’ personal freedom is highly respected in a pluralist
nation. A state adopting this ideology will provide both financial and social
support to minority communities and immigrants.
The
distinction between the pluralism ideology and the civic ideology is that the state won’t intervene in financing or
promoting private values of specific groups of individuals, even though the
collective organization to preserve or promote cultural distinctiveness is
allowed and respected.
In
opposition to the pluralism and civic ideologies, the assimilation ideology upholds the fact that the state can interfere
with some private values of individuals. Immigrants living in nation with
assimilation ideology are expected to adopt the cultural values of the dominant
community abandoning their own ones. States sometimes limit manifestations of
immigrant cultural distinctiveness.
The
republican ideology is close to the
assimilation ideology. It is in favor of the “universal man” where cultural
distinctions have to be eliminated. Ethnolinguistic dissimilarities have to be
“leveled-out” for citizens to be treated equally.
The
main difference about the ethnist
ideology with all the others discussed above is that, usually, it choses
who can be part of the dominant community. In some country, origins and “blood”
are the main criteria, “only members of selected “racial” groups can gain full
legal status as citizens of the state” (Bourhis, Moïse, Perrault,
Senécal, 1997).
Pluralism and civic ideologies tend to orientate
towards integration and therefor harmony among immigrants and host communities
whereas the ethnist ideology would lean towards separation and segregation
orientations which could lead to a conflict and problematic situation.
The illustration below summaries how state policies
are related cultural issues and the attractiveness of the country for
foreigners.
What can be learned
from this analysis is that in order to be attractive and retain foreigners in a
country a consensual situation has
to be reached rather than a problematic one.
Consensus is more
likely to occur if integration or assimilation orientations are adopted
by both foreigners and locals.
Considering the
theories and analysis above, pluralism
and civic ideologies adopted by
states will tend to move toward consensus and harmony among the community.
Cities managers should
take into account the influence state policies have on acculturation
orientation of foreigners and locals and their implications on the
attractiveness of the country abroad.
References:
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire