Product Code Database
Acculturation refers to the psychological, social, and cultural transformation that takes place through direct contact between two cultures, wherein one or both engage in adapting to dominant cultural influences without compromising their essential distinctiveness. It occurs when an individual acquires, adopts, or adjusts to a new cultural environment as a result of being placed into another culture or when another culture is brought into contact. This balancing process can result in a mixed society with prevailing and blended features or with splintered cultural changes, depending on the sociopolitical atmosphere. Individuals from other cultures work toward fitting into a more prevalent culture by selectively integrating aspects of the dominant culture, such as its Cultural trait and Social norm, while still holding onto their original cultural values and traditions. The impacts of acculturation are experienced differently at various levels by both the adoptees of the mainstream culture and the hosts of the source culture. Outcomes can include marginalization, respectful coexistence, destructive tensions, integration, and cultural evolution.
At the individual level, the process of acculturation refers to the socialization process by which foreign-born individuals blend the values, customs, norms, cultural attitudes, and behaviors of the overarching host culture. This process has been linked to changes in daily behavior, as well as numerous changes in Psychology and physical well-being. As enculturation is used to describe the process of first-culture learning, acculturation can be thought of as second-culture learning.
Under natural circumstances which are common in daily life encountered today, acculturation automatically takes a long time spanning several generations. Physical force can be seen in some instances of acculturation, which can cause it to occur more rapidly, but it is not a main component of the process. More commonly, the process occurs through constant Peer pressure and consistent exposure to the more prevalent host culture.
Scholars in different disciplines have developed more than 60 theories of acculturation, though many lack academic rigour in their proposals. Active academic focus on the concept of acculturation began in 1918. As it has been approached from the fields of psychology, anthropology, and sociology at different times, numerous theories and definitions have emerged to describe elements of the acculturative process. Despite definitions and evidence that acculturation is a two-way process of change, theory and research have dealt mainly with the minorities' adaptations and changes such as immigrants, refugees, and indigenous people in response to their contact with the dominant majority. Contemporary research has primarily focused on the various strategies of acculturation within societies, the factors influencing the acculturation process and the individuals involved, and the development of interventions aimed at facilitating smoother transitions.
One of the most notable forms of acculturation is imperialism, the most common progenitor of direct cultural change. Although these cultural changes may seem simple, the combined results are both robust and complex, impacting both groups and individuals from the original culture and the host culture. Acculturation with dominance has been researched by sociologists, anthropologists, and historians virtually only, mostly in a colonialism context, due to the dispersal of western European people all over the world over the last five centuries.Nutini, Hugo G. "Acculturation". In David Carrasco (ed.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures. : Oxford University Press, 2001
The first psychological theory of acculturation was proposed in W.I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki's 1918 study, The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. From studying Polish immigrants in Chicago, they illustrated three forms of acculturation corresponding to three personality types: Bohemian (adopting the host culture and abandoning their culture of origin), Philistine (failing to adopt the host culture but preserving their culture of origin), and creative-type (able to adapt to the host culture while preserving their culture of origin). In 1936, Redfield, Linton, and Herskovits provided the first widely used definition of acculturation as:
Long before efforts toward racial and cultural integration in the United States arose, the common process was assimilation. In 1964, Milton Gordon's book Assimilation in American Life outlined seven stages of the assimilative process, setting the stage for literature on this topic. Later, Young Yun Kim authored a reiteration of Gordon's work, but argued cross-cultural adaptation as a multi-staged process. Kim's theory focused on the unitary nature of psychological and social processes and the reciprocal functional personal environment interdependence.Kim, Young Yun (2005). Adapting to a New Culture. In Gudykunst, W (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Although this view was the earliest to fuse micro-psychological and macro-social factors into an integrated theory, it was clearly focused on assimilation rather than racial or ethnic integration. In Kim's approach, assimilation is unilinear and the sojourner must conform to the majority group culture in order to be "communicatively competent." According to Gudykunst and Kim (2003)Gudykunst, W. & Kim, Y. Y. Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication, 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill. the "cross-cultural adaptation process involves a continuous interplay of deculturation and acculturation that brings about change in strangers in the direction of assimilation, the highest degree of adaptation theoretically conceivable." This view has been heavily criticized, since the biological science definition of adaptation refers to the random mutation of new forms of life, not the convergence of a monoculture (Kramer, 2003).
In opposition to Gudykunst and Kim's adaptive development, Eric M. Kramer developed his Cultural Fusion theory (2011,Kramer, E. M. (2011). Preface. In Croucher, S. M. & Cronn-Mills, D., Religious misperceptions: The case of Muslims and Christians in France and Britain . (pp. v-xxxi). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 2010, 2000a, 1997a,Kramer, E. M. (2010). Immigration. In R. L. Jackson, II (Ed.), Encyclopedia of identity . (pp. 384-389). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Kramer, E. M. (1997). Modern/Postmodern: Off the Beaten Path of Antimodernism. Westport, CT: Praeger. 2000a,Kramer, E. M. (2000). Cultural fusion and the defense of difference. In M. K. Asante & J. E. Min (Eds.), Socio-cultural Conflict between African and Korean Americans (pp. 182-223). New York: University Press of America.Kramer, E. M. (Contributing Editor). (2003). The Emerging Monoculture: Assimilation and the "Model Minority". Westport, CT: Praeger. 2011,Kramer, E. M. (2011). Preface. In Croucher, S. M. & Cronn-Mills, D., Religious Misperceptions: The case of Muslims and Christians in France and Britain (pp. vii-xxxii). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. 2012Kramer, E. M. (in press). Dimensional accrual and dissociation: An introduction. I In J. Grace (Ed.), Comparative Cultures and Civilizations (Vol. 3). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.) maintaining clear, conceptual distinctions between assimilation, adaptation, and integration. According to Kramer, assimilation involves conformity to a pre-existing form. Kramer's (2000a, 2000b, 2000c, 2003, 2009, 2011) theory of Cultural Fusion, which is based on systems theory and hermeneutics, argues that it is impossible for a person to unlearn themselves and that by definition, "growth" is not a zero-sum process that requires the disillusion of one form for another to come into being but rather a process of learning new languages and cultural repertoires (ways of thinking, cooking, playing, working, worshiping, and so forth). That is, in Kramer's view, one does not need to unlearn a language to learn another language, or unlearn who he or she is to learn new patterns of dancing, cooking, speaking, etc. Kramer disagrees with Gudykunst and Kim (2003) in saying that this commingling of language and culture generates cognitive complexity, or being able to switch between cultural repertoires. In short, Kramer says that learning is expansion, not unlearning.
Kramer's theory identifies three communication styles ( idolic, symbolic, or signalic) in order to explain cultural differences. In this theory, there is no single means of communication automatically better, and no last word on intercultural conflict presented. Kramer presents three connected theories instead: the theory Dimensional Accrual and Dissociation, the Cultural Fusion Theory and the Cultural Churning Theory.
For instance, according to Kramer's DAD theory, a statue of a god in an idolic community is god, and stealing it is a highly punishable offense. For example, many people in India believe that statues of the god Ganesh – to take such a statue/god from its temple is more than theft, it is blasphemy. Idolic reality involves strong emotional identification, where a holy relic does not simply symbolize the sacred, it is sacred. By contrast, a crucifix follows a symbolic nature, where it represents a symbol of God. Lastly, the signalic modality is far less emotional and increasingly dissociated.
Kramer refers to changes in each culture due to acculturation as co-evolution. Kramer also addresses what he calls the qualities of out vectors which address the nature in which the former and new cultures make contact. Kramer uses the phrase "interaction potential" to refer to differences in individual or group acculturative processes. For instance, the process of acculturation varies significantly in the case of individuals who were immigrating to the host nation as refugees or immigrants. Furthermore, this process encompasses the importance of how hospitable the host society is to the newcomer, how welcoming the host is toward accommodating and acquainting the newcomer, and how their interaction affects the host and the newcomer.
Studies suggest that individuals' respective acculturation strategy can differ between their private and public life spheres. For instance, an individual may reject the values and norms of the dominant culture in their private life (separation), whereas they might adapt to the dominant culture in public parts of their life (i.e., integration or assimilation).
Attitudes towards acculturation, and thus the range of acculturation strategies available, have not been consistent over time. For example, for most of American history, policies and attitudes have been based around established ethnic hierarchies with an expectation of one-way assimilation for predominantly White European immigrants. Although the notion of cultural pluralism has existed since the early 20th century, the recognition and promotion of multiculturalism did not become prominent in America until the 1980s. Separatism can still be seen today in autonomous religious communities such as the Amish and the Hutterites. Direct environment also affects the availability, advantage, and choice of various acculturation strategies. Since immigrants settle in unequal segments of society, immigrants to lower-ranked economic and ethnic hierarchies may face restricted social mobility and membership in a disadvantaged group. It is accounted for by the Segmented Assimilation theory, under which the case when immigrant groups or individuals assimilate into the society of the host nation to its various segments' culture. One's entry into the upper class, middle class, or lower class is also highly dependent on the socioeconomic status of the last generation.
On a broad scale study, involving immigrants in 13 immigration-receiving countries, the experience of discrimination was positively related to the maintenance of the immigrants' ethnic culture. That is, immigrant communities that retain their culture values and practices are more likely to be discriminated against compared to those that make sacrifices in their culture. Additional research has also shown that the acculturation process and strategy of immigrants can largely be determined by how accepting of acculturation preference among the host society members is. The degree of intergroup and interethnic contact has also been shown to influence acculturation preferences between groups, support for multilingual and multicultural maintenance of minority groups, and openness towards multiculturalism. Greater comprehension towards out-groups, empathy, building community, lessening prejudice and social distance, and changing good intentions and action assist in the creation of improved interethnic and intercultural relations through intergroup contact.
There is variation in preferred and ideal acculturation approaches among most people in different aspects of their lives. For instance, among immigrants, it is easier and preferable to acculturate towards the host nation's views of politics and government, as compared to acculturation of new beliefs in terms of religion, principles, values, and tradition.
One prominent explanation for the negative health behaviors and outcomes (e.g. substance abuse, low birth weight) associated with the acculturation process is the acculturative stress theory. Acculturative stress refers to the stress response of immigrants in response to their experiences of acculturation. Stressors may be but are not restricted to learning stresses of a second language, preserving the native tongue, reconciling oppositional cultural values, and brokering between host vs. native acceptable social behaviors. Acculturative stress can manifest in many ways, including but not limited to anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and other forms of mental and physical maladaptation. Stress caused by acculturation has been heavily documented in phenomenological research on the acculturation of a large variety of immigrants. This research has shown that acculturation is a "fatiguing experience requiring a constant stream of bodily energy," and is both an "individual and familial endeavor" involving " consisting of "enduring loneliness caused by seemingly insurmountable language barriers.".
One of the disparities with respect to risk for acculturative stress is degree of willingness, or migration status, and it can be greatly different if one immigrates into a country as a voluntary immigrant, refugee, asylum seeker, or sojourner. According to several studies, voluntary migrants experience roughly 50% less acculturative stress than refugees, making this an important distinction. According to Schwartz (2010), there are four main categories of migrants:
Researchers have only recently discovered that there is an additional level of complexity in this field, in the form that survey data have grouped different ethnic groups together or have misidentified an ethnic group. In generalization, there can be the loss or blurring of subtlety and nuance in terms of the acculturation experience or acculturative stress of an individual or group. For example, much of the scholarly literature on this topic uses U.S. Census data. The Census incorrectly labels Arab Americans as Caucasian or "White". By doing so, this data set omits many factors about the Muslim Arab-American migrant experience, including but not limited to acculturation and acculturative stress. This is of particular importance after the events of September 11, 2001, since Muslim Arab-Americans have faced increased prejudice and discrimination, leaving this religious ethnic community with an increased risk of acculturative stress. Research focusing on the adolescent Muslim Arab American experience of acculturation has also found that youth who experience acculturative stress during the identity formation process are at a higher risk for low self-esteem, anxiety, and depression.
Some researchers argue that education, social support, hopefulness about employment opportunities, financial resources, family cohesion, maintenance of traditional cultural values, and high socioeconomic status (SES) serve as protections or mediators against acculturative stress. Previous work shows that limited education, low SES, and underemployment all increase acculturative stress. Since this field of research is rapidly growing, more research is needed to better understand how certain subgroups are differentially impacted, how stereotypes and biases have influenced former research questions about acculturative stress, and the ways in which acculturative stress can be effectively mediated.
Cultural appropriation is the process of adopting specific elements of one culture by members a different cultural group. It can include the introduction of forms of dress or personal adornment, music and art, religion, language, or behavior. These elements are typically imported into the existing culture, and may have wildly different meanings or lack the subtleties of their original cultural context. Because of this, cultural appropriation for financial gain is oftentimes condemned, and has sometimes been termed "cultural theft".
Cultural imperialism is the practice of promoting the culture or language of one nation in another, usually occurring in situations in which assimilation is the dominant strategy of acculturation. Cultural imperialism can take the form of an active, formal policy or a general attitude regarding cultural superiority.
Language plays a pivotal role in cultural heritage, serving as both a foundation for group identity and a means for transmitting culture in situations of contact between languages. Language acculturation strategies, attitudes and identities can also influence the sociolinguistic development of languages in bi/multilingual contexts.
|
|
