Assimilation involves integrating new elements into a system. It is often discussed in the context of “cultural assimilation,” where immigrant groups are encouraged to embrace the culture, values, and social norms of their host nation. This involves letting go of or concealing aspects of one’s own culture, such as certain foods, clothing, language, and religious traditions, which may be unfamiliar to the host nation.
Proponents of assimilation argue that it fosters a more unified cultural identity, minimizes cultural conflicts, and provides immigrants with increased social and economic opportunities. This article explores the theoretical models of assimilation and examines what assimilation looks like in practical terms. The central question addressed is whether supporters of assimilation are correct in asserting its benefits, or if assimilation leads to discrimination and the erosion of cultural diversity.
Understanding the Theory of Cultural Assimilation
The concept of cultural assimilation has been around as long as people have moved from one place to another. Back in the early 20th century, sociologists in the United States started creating theories about assimilation. Dr. Nicki Lisa Cole explained these theories in a 2018 article on ThoughtCo.
There are three main theoretical models of assimilation, and each provides a different perspective on how cultures mix and adapt.
The Melting Pot Model: Classic and New
The first model sees the United States as a melting pot, where assimilation is a step-by-step process. According to this idea, each generation becomes more similar to the dominant culture. While the children of immigrants might hold onto some of their parents’ traditions, their own children, and the generations after them, are more likely to let go of some aspects of their grandparents’ culture. The end goal is that everyone in society shares the same culture.
However, this theory has faced criticism. Some people call it “Anglo-conformist.” It also works best when the dominant culture is clear and easily defined.
Racial/Ethnic Disadvantage: Factors that Matter
Another theory looks at assimilation through the lens of race, ethnicity, and religion. It suggests that assimilation is not a one-size-fits-all process. Depending on a person’s background, they might have a smoother assimilation experience, or they might face challenges due to racism and xenophobia, especially for non-White immigrants.
Simply learning the language and adopting the dominant cultural values may not be enough when discrimination is a significant barrier. This theory emphasizes the personal and societal consequences when some groups have advantages while others face disadvantages.
Segmented Assimilation: Different Paths for Different Groups
The segmented assimilation model argues that various immigrant groups assimilate into different parts of society. When a person arrives in a new country, their access to different sections of society is influenced by factors like socioeconomic status. Some individuals follow a traditional assimilation model, gradually becoming part of the mainstream.
On the other hand, others might assimilate into economically disadvantaged parts of society, limiting their opportunities. Sociologists also study a third pathway, where individuals retain many of their cultural values while successfully assimilating economically. Scholars focusing on the segmented model often examine the experiences of second-generation immigrants.
Also Read: What is Nationalism and Patriotism (Nationalism Vs Patriotism)
Assimilation in Everyday Life
Assimilation is a complex concept as revealed by models, and also a natural process in real life. It frequently occurs as individuals adapt to new environments, and their children naturally become accustomed to diverse cultures. Nevertheless, the history of assimilation is tainted with troubling aspects.
Forced assimilation has been imposed on indigenous populations and immigrants in various locations, and this highlights the darker side of this phenomenon. Additionally, assimilation is closely linked to notions of race and the perception of “the other.” Two instances exemplify the negative aspects of assimilation:
1. The Dark Legacy of Canada’s Residential Schools
When Europeans settled in Canada, they believed in their cultural superiority. In an attempt to “save” and “civilize” the Indigenous people, they adopted a misguided project with devastating consequences. Taking inspiration from the United States, the residential school system was established in the 1880s and made mandatory for Indigenous children in 1920, leaving them with no alternative.
The rationale was that only through forced assimilation could the Indigenous people and Canada prosper. The schools enforced assimilation by imposing European dress, cutting children’s hair, and permitting only English, severing ties to family and culture.
Children endured physical, emotional, and spiritual abuse, along with inadequate nutrition and healthcare. Between 1883 and 1997, over 150,000 children were forcibly taken from their homes. The last residential school closed its doors only in 1996, leaving survivors still grappling with the trauma.
In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s final report revealed the shocking conclusion that the residential school system had attempted “cultural genocide,” with evidence suggesting an even graver reality of literal genocide, as mass graves were discovered at various schools. In 2021, Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation reported approximately 200 potential burial sites at the former Kamloops Indian Residential School, uncovered through ground-penetrating radar.
Canada’s assimilation campaign, touted as beneficial, instead resulted in the destruction of Indigenous culture, inflicted trauma, and the tragic loss of children’s lives. Presently, Canada faces a reckoning for its grave violations of human rights.
2. The Paradox of Asian Americans in the United States
The history of Asians in America unfolds a complex tale of assimilation, revealing a paradox in the United States. While often hailed as a “model minority,” Asian Americans simultaneously face being labelled as “unassimilable.”
This paradox traces back to the 19th century when Chinese immigrants, arriving in the 1850s, were subjected to anti-Asian discrimination. Perceived as cheap labour, they took up roles as gardeners, laundry workers, and railroad labourers during the construction of the Transcontinental Railroad. Tensions escalated, culminating in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which was only repealed by the Magnuson Act in 1943, allowing limited Chinese immigration.
In a 2012 lecture titled “Asians in America: The Paradox of ‘The Model Minority‘ and ‘The Perpetual Foreigner,'” Dr. Min Zhou highlighted the negative perceptions of Asian immigrants before WWII, portraying them as “sneaky” foreigners with unfamiliar customs. Discrimination intensified during WWII, particularly against Japanese Americans, leading to internment camps. Dr. Zhou identifies this period as the genesis of the “model minority” myth, as Chinese Americans sought to affirm their loyalty to the U.S. and distance themselves from Japanese Americans.
During the civil rights movement, the model minority myth solidified, portraying Asian Americans as exemplars of successful assimilation. This perception, however, not only divides minority groups but also oversimplifies the diverse experiences of all Asian and Pacific Islanders, masking historical prejudices.
Recent events, such as the surge in anti-Asian racism during the COVID-19 pandemic, have laid bare the fragile boundary between being a “model minority” and being perceived as a perpetual “foreigner.” Despite strides in assimilation, Asian Americans continue to confront discrimination and violence, raising questions about the efficacy of assimilation as a societal concept.
Also Read: What Is Cultural Diversity And Why Is It Important?
Biculturalism Vs. Cultural Assimilation
When a dominant culture insists on everyone conforming to its ways, assimilation becomes essential for success. This is evident in historical instances like Canada’s residential schools and the experiences of Asian Americans. However, complete assimilation isn’t the only option, nor is it always the best one.
Refusing to assimilate entirely can lead to isolation and missed opportunities. So, is there a middle ground?
Psychology Today defines biculturalism as blending one’s cultural background with personal experiences. Rather than feeling torn between two cultures, it’s about reconciling them. Research by Seth Schwartz, a public health sciences professor, shows that biculturalism can lead to higher self-esteem, less anxiety, and better family relationships. Interestingly, fully assimilated individuals often face worse outcomes, a phenomenon known as the “immigrant paradox.”
Instead of assimilating completely, people can integrate aspects of different cultures to create a unique and satisfying identity. This approach allows individuals to maintain connections to their heritage while embracing new experiences.
Conclusion
When people consider moving to a new culture, many would likely choose biculturalism if they felt accepted. However, some places may discourage immigrants from maintaining their cultural identity, or they have specific rules about what is acceptable. A country might welcome the new foods brought by immigrants but set limits on their religious practices. The more restrictions there are, the less welcome individuals feel, making them less inclined to preserve their cultural identity. Despite the challenges, some may find it easier to abandon their past and fully assimilate.
For biculturalism to thrive, countries must actively support it. This requires addressing issues like racism and xenophobia, ensuring that different cultures are celebrated rather than marginalized.
Support systems should be established to prevent cultural differences from becoming obstacles to success. This approach not only contributes to the happiness and well-being of individuals but also fosters diverse and enriching cultures on a broader scale. Ultimately, embracing biculturalism intentionally creates a society where people from different backgrounds can coexist harmoniously, promoting a healthier and more vibrant community.
