| Children | Parents | Type | Expected Outcome | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| American Language and Customs | Embedded in Ethnic Community | American Language and Customs | Embedded in Ethnic Community | ||
| + | - | + | - | Consonant Acculturation | Joint search for integration into American mainstream; rapid shift to English monolingualism among children |
| - | + | - | + | Consonant Resistance To Acculturation | Isolation within the ethnic community; likely to return to home country |
| + | - | - | + | Dissonant Acculturation (I) | Rupture of family ties and children’s abandonment of ethnic community; limited bilingualism or English monolingualism among children |
| + | - | - | - | Dissonant Acculturation (II) | Loss of parental authority and of parental languages; role reversal and intergenerational conflict |
| + | + | + | + | Selective Acculturation | Preservation of parental authority; little or no intergenerational conflict; fluent bilingualism among children |
Week 6
Acculturation
SOCI 231
Lecture I: October 7th
A Quick Reminder
Response Memo Deadline
Your fourth response memo—which has to be between 250-400 words and posted on our Moodle Discussion Board—is due by 8:00 PM today.
A Quick Reminder
Midterm Paper
Midterm Paper Deadline
Your midterm papers are due by 8:00 PM on Friday, October 25th.
A Quick Reminder
Midterm Paper
Guidelines for the midterm paper can be found here.
This Week’s Focus —
Acculturation in Psychology
Review
A Question
Have we encountered acculturation before?
Review
| Subprocess or Condition | Type or Stage of Assimilation | Special Term |
|---|---|---|
| Change of cultural patterns to those of host society | Cultural or behavioral assimilation | Acculturation |
| Large-scale entrance into cliques, clubs, and institutions of host society, on primary group level | Structural assimilation | None |
| Large-scale intermarriage | Marital assimilation | Amalgamation |
| Development of sense of peoplehood based exclusively on host society | Identificational assimilation | None |
| Absence of prejudice | Attitude receptional assimilation | None |
| Absence of discrimination | Behavior receptional assimilation | None |
| Absence of value and power conflict | Civic assimilation | None |
Review
Review
Associated with acculturation are culturally codified notions of appropriate behavior which, when learned, serve as cues to others as to an individual’s level of cultural and social competence. Such competence contributes to reducing social distance by signaling behavioral attributes that appear familiar and trustworthy.
(Alba and Nee 2003, 42, EMPHASIS ADDED)
Group Discussion I
Defining Acculturation
In groups of 2-3, discuss how you would define acculturation.
How is it related to assimilation?
Acculturation in Psychology
A Psychosocial Framework
So, why are we returning to acculturation?
A Psychosocial Framework
It offers some new opportunities.
A Psychosocial Framework
- A look at how non-sociologists—in this case, psychologists—make sense of immigrant incorporation.
- An entrypoint for conceptualizing individual-level adaptation strategies of immigrant-origin people.
Back to the Past
An Early Model
The Basic Definition
Acculturation comprehends those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original cultural patterns of either or both groups.
(Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits 1936, 149, EMPHASIS ADDED)
An Early Model
Analyzing Acculturation
According to Redfield and colleauges (1936), analyzing acculturative change involves scrutinizing the following factors:
Types of Contacts (e.g., group size, level of hostility)
Situational Factors (e.g., political inequality, or equality, across groups)
The Process (e.g., selection, sequencing and integration of cultural traits)
Psychological Mechanisms (personality types, psychic conflicts etc.)
Acculturative Results (e.g., acceptance, adaptation or reaction)
Back to the Future
A Conceptual Framework
Some Context
Acculturation is, arguably, one of the most frequently mentioned constructs or concepts in ethnic psychology. Indeed, researchers often include some measure of acculturation in their research to analyze differences within ethnic groups and to understand the relationship of acculturation to psychosocial adjustment and health.
(Organista, Marín, and Chun 2010, 100, EMPHASIS ADDED)
A Conceptual Framework
Some Context
Psychologists often study how acculturation is related to—
Adaptability to New Situations
Depression and Psychosocial Adjustment
Cigarette Smoking
Alcohol Use
Etc.
A Conceptual Framework
A Minimal Definition
[A] dynamic and multidimensional process of adaptation that occurs when distinct cultures come into sustained contact. It involves different degrees and instances of culture learning and maintenance that are contingent upon individual, group, and environmental factors. Acculturation is dynamic because it is a continuous and fluctuating process and it is multidimensional because it transpires across numerous indices of psychosocial functioning and can result in multiple adaptation outcomes.
(Organista, Marín, and Chun 2010, 105, EMPHASIS ADDED)
Group Discussion II
Acculturation and Assimilation
In those same groups, discuss how Organista et al.’s (2010) definition of acculturation maps onto the perspectives we’ve covered in class thus far—from classical assimilation theory to neo-assimilationism or the segmented assimilation perspective.
Acculturation at Different Levels of Analysis
Berry’s Canonical Framework
Different Levels
Graves (1967) introduced the concept of psychological acculturation. This concept refers to changes in an individual who is a participant in a culture-contact situation, being influenced both directly by the external culture and by the changing culture of which the individual is a member. At this individual level, the kinds of changes taking place might be in identity, values, attitudes, and behavior. It is clear that both the cultural and psychological levels of acculturation need to be studied in any comprehensive examination of how groups and individuals change following intercultural contact.
(Berry 2017, 16, EMPHASIS ADDED)
Berry’s Canonical Framework
Different Levels
Berry’s Canonical Framework
The Group or “Cultural” Level
According to Berry (2017), analysts need to be attuned to a few “cultural” or contextual variables at the aggregate level—
Cultural Attributes Prior to Contact
The Nature of Intergroup Contact
Berry’s Canonical Framework
The Group or “Cultural” Level
Adaptation of Figure 3.2 in Berry (2006)
A Question
Are there any issues with these classifications?
Berry’s Canonical Framework
The Group or “Cultural” Level
Yet Another Question
Why are “group” differences important to account for?
Berry’s Canonical Framework
The Individual Level
Analysts also need to be attuned to a few individual-level factors that are endogenous to the acculturation process (cf. Berry 2017) —
Psychological Acculturation
Eventual Adaptation
Berry’s Canonical Framework
The Individual Level
These psychological changes are the what component of individual acculturative change changes; they can be a set of rather easily accomplished behavioral changes or they can be more challenging, even problematic. In the former category are surface changes in individuals, for example in their dress, food habits, and language knowledge and use. In the latter category are deeper changes, such as in their cultural identities, cultural values, and even personalities. Second, in problematic cases, the result may be an increase in acculturative stress as manifested by uncertainty, anxiety, and depression … Third, because not everyone seeks to acculturate in the same way, it is important to conceptualize differing ways of acculturating, often termed acculturation strategies.
(Berry 2017, 20, EMPHASIS ADDED)
Berry’s Canonical Framework
The Individual Level
These psychological processes are linked to three long-term adaptations to cultural contact or interpenetration—
Psychological (i.e., self-esteem)
Socicultural (e.g., educational attainment)
Intercultural (e.g., lack of prejudice)
Berry’s Canonical Framework
Putting It All Together
An adaption of Figure 2.1 in Berry (2017).
Group Discussion III
Drawing Connections
Find a new group member!
Select one of the assimilation paradigms we’ve discussed thus far.
Draw explicit connections between your paradigm of choice and Berry’s (2017) analytic framework.
Lecture II: October 9th
Some Reminders, Some Updates
Midterm Paper
Midterm Paper Deadline (Revised)
Your midterm papers are due either—
8:00 PM on Friday, October 25th
8:00 PM on Friday, November 1st
The choice is yours.
Some Reminders, Some Updates
Midterm Paper
Once again, guidelines for the midterm paper can be found
here.
Some Reminders, Some Updates
Midterm Paper
A Question
Are any of you planning to submit the paper with a colleague?
Some Reminders, Some Updates
Midterm Paper
If so, please let me know.
Remember: groups have to meet with me—
ideally, before and after the deadline.
Some Reminders, Some Updates
Mid-Semester Break
Mid-Semester Break
The mid-semester break is upon us. Ergo, we do not have class on Monday.
Please, do not show up on Monday.
The How of Acculturation
But First—A Bit of Review
A Question
What does psychological acculturation refer to?
But First—A Bit of Review
Today, we will focus on individual-level
acculturation strategies.
Acculturation Strategies—How
“[T]he concept of acculturation strategies … refers to
the how of acculturation.”
(Berry 2017, 21, EMPHASIS ADDED)
Acculturation Strategies
Acculturation strategies consist of two components: attitudes and behaviors (that is, the preferences for, and actual practices of, ways of relating to one’s own and other groups) that are exhibited in day-to-day intercultural encounters.
(Berry 2017, 21, EMPHASIS ADDED)
Acculturation Strategies
Of course, there is rarely a one-to-one match between what an individual prefers and seeks (attitudes) and what one is actually able to do (behaviors). This discrepancy is widely studied in social psychology and is usually explained as being the result of social constraints on behaviors (such as norms, opportunities, etc.). In this case, these constraints lie in the social and intercultural contexts in which an individual lives, often due to differential power available to groups to pursue their preferred way of acculturating. Nevertheless, there is often a positive correlation between acculturation attitudes and actual behaviors, permitting the use of an overall assessment of individual acculturation strategies.
(Berry 2017, 21, EMPHASIS ADDED)
Acculturation Strategies
Remember This Plot From Monday?
An adaption of Figure 2.1 in Berry (2017).
Acculturation Strategies
At the Aggregate Level
At the cultural level, as noted previously, the two groups in contact (whether dominant or nondominant) usually have some notion about what they are attempting to do (e.g., colonial policies, or motivations for migration), or what is being done to them during the contact. Similarly, the social, cultural, and political goals of the emergent ethnocultural groups will influence their acculturation strategies; how should we try to live in this new society?
(Berry 2017, 21, EMPHASIS ADDED)
Acculturation Strategies
At the Individual Level
At the individual level, both the behavioral changes and acculturative stress phenomena are now known to be a function, at least to some extent, of what people try to do during their acculturation; and the longer-term outcomes (psychological, sociocultural, and intercultural adaptations) usually have some correspondence with the strategic goals set by the groups of which they are members.
(Berry 2017, 21, EMPHASIS ADDED)
Group Discussion IV
Interpreting Another Plot
Link This to Acculturation Strategies—In Groups of 2!
An adaption of Figure 2.1 in Berry (2017).
Disparate Acculturation Strategies Among Individuals
Variation in Acculturation Strategies
[T]he original definitions of acculturation foresaw that cultural and psychological homogenization (later identified as globalization) would not be the only possible or inevitable outcome of intercultural contact. This is because people hold different views about how they want to live following contact: Not everyone seeks out such contact, and even among those who do, not everyone seeks to change their culture and behavior to be more like the other (often dominant) group.
(Berry 2017, 21, EMPHASIS ADDED)
Variation in Acculturation Strategies
Nearly 90 years ago, Redfield et al. (1936) specified that assimilation is not the only option available to individuals in the midst of
“intercultural contact.”
Variation in Acculturation Strategies
Taking this assertion as a starting point, Berry … first distinguished between the strategies of assimilation and integration, and later between these original strategies and separation and marginalization as various ways in which acculturation (both of groups and of individuals) could take place. These distinctions are based on peoples and groups’ orientation to two dimensions: toward one’s own group, and toward other groups in the larger society. A third issue included in the framework was the power of individuals and groups to choose and pursue these two orientations.
(Berry 2017, 21, EMPHASIS ADDED)
Variation in Acculturation Strategies
In other words, John W. Berry—in his original theoretical formulations (i.e., from the ’70s and ’80s)—identified four major acculturation strategies that individuals deploy in “intercultural encounters” (cf. Berry 2017).
Assimilation
Integration
Separation
Marginalization
Four Main Strategies
From the point of view of nondominant ethnocultural groups, when individuals do not wish to maintain their cultural identity and seek daily interaction with other cultures, the assimilation strategy is defined.
(Berry 2017, 23, EMPHASIS ADDED)
When there is an interest in both maintaining one’s original culture and having daily interactions with other groups, integration is the option …. [H]ere, there is some degree of cultural integrity maintained, while at the same time the individual seeks, as a member of an ethnocultural group, to participate as an integral part of the larger society.
(Berry 2017, 23, EMPHASIS ADDED)
In contrast, when individuals place a value on holding on to their original culture, and at the same time wish to avoid interaction with others, then the separation alternative is defined.
(Berry 2017, 23, EMPHASIS ADDED)
Finally, when there is little possibility of, or interest in, cultural maintenance (often for reasons of enforced cultural loss), and little interest in having relations with others (often for reasons of exclusion or discrimination), then marginalization is defined.
(Berry 2017, 23, EMPHASIS ADDED)
Four Main Strategies
The Broader Social Context
Acculturation Strategies Within Constraints
Of course, nondominant groups and their individual members do not always have the freedom to choose how they want to engage in intercultural relations and acculturation. Constraints imposed by the dominant group may enforce certain kinds of relations, or limit the choices of nondominant groups or individuals. This is most clearly so in the case of integration, which can only be freely chosen and successfully pursued by nondominant groups when the dominant society is open and inclusive in its orientation toward cultural diversity.
(Berry 2017, 23, EMPHASIS ADDED)
Acculturation Strategies Within Constraints
In the case of assimilation, there are obvious constraints on whether individuals can “pass” into, and become accepted as a member of, another ethnocultural group. People’s characteristics, such as accent, dress, and physical appearance, will signal their existing group membership, and if these features are not acceptable to members of the other group, they will impede (even prevent) successful assimilation. In such cases, the desire to be assimilated, but being prevented from doing so, may induce acculturative stress.
(Berry 2017, 23, EMPHASIS ADDED)
Acculturation Strategies Within Constraints
Moreover, integration (and separation) can only be pursued when other members of one’s ethnocultural group share in the wish to maintain the group’s cultural heritage. In this sense, these two strategies are “collectivistic,” whereas assimilation is more “individualistic.”
(Berry 2017, 23, EMPHASIS ADDED)
Acculturation Strategies Within Constraints
So, how can we systematically think about the social constraints that structure individual-level acculturation strategies?
Acculturation Strategies Within Constraints
An Initial Attempt—“Berry Boxes”
An adaption of Figure 2.2 in Berry (2017).
Acculturation Strategies Within Constraints
A Newer Attempt
An adaption of Figure 2.3 in Berry (2017).
Acculturation Strategies Within Constraints
Some Criticism
Berry’s framework is, of course, not beyond reproach.
For a recent critique, see Schwartz et al. (2010).
Group Discussion V
Acculturation Strategies and Neo-Asssimilation
In groups of 2, discuss how you can connect Berry’s ideas about acculturation strategies to the neo-assimilation framework.
See You Next Wednesday
References
Note: Scroll to access the entire bibliography
Alba, Richard D., and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Harvard University Press.
Berry, John W. 2006. “Contexts of Acculturation.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Acculturation Psychology, edited by David L. Sam and John W. Berry, 27–42. Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489891.006.
———. 2017. “Theories and Models of Acculturation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Acculturation and Health, 15–28. Oxford Library of Psychology. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.
Gordon, Milton M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion and National Origins. Cary, United States: Oxford University Press, Incorporated.
Graves, Theodore D. 1967. “Psychological Acculturation in a Tri-Ethnic Community.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 23 (4): 337–50. https://doi.org/10.1086/soutjanth.23.4.3629450.
Organista, Pamela, Gerardo Marín, and Kevin Chun. 2010. The Psychology of Ethnic Groups in the United States. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452274645.
Portes, Alejandro, and Rubén G. Rumbaut. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley: University of California Press. http://hdl.handle.net/2027/heb.31535.
Redfield, Robert, Ralph Linton, and Melville J. Herskovits. 1936. “Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation.” American Anthropologist 38 (1): 149–52. https://www.jstor.org/stable/662563.
Schwartz, Seth J., Jennifer B. Unger, Byron L. Zamboanga, and José Szapocznik. 2010. “Rethinking the Concept of Acculturation.” The American Psychologist 65 (4): 237–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019330.