Aspectos de orden emocional que surgen en la experiencia de lectura

In a number of interpretations of assimilation throughout the rather short history of its rapid development presented above, there seem to be a number of overlaps with the concept of integration.68 Although it seems quite impossible to set the boundaries between

contemporary concepts of assimilation and integration, the conceptual framework for the process of integration proposed here attempts to clarify the relation of assimilation to integration.

First, it should be stressed that there are some problems and ongoing debates in theories of immigrant integration among past and contemporary scholars. One of issue is a constant imprecision in the use of different terms for integration. Although the concept of integration is relatively new, there have been other widely-used alternatives, such as assimilation, acculturation, or inclusion. They have paved the way for current integration research. Nevertheless, they have often been used interchangeably or confused with integration. In researchers’ dialogues with practitioners, such scientific concepts might acquire normative connotations, making it difficult for scientists to use them in

communication with a broader audience.69 Some of these terms, like “assimilation” in Europe, have negative associations, so they are quickly replaced by terms which are less

ideologically loaded.70

The strategy among scholars and/or policy-makers for using terms associated with immigrants entering the receiving society seems to be rather unclear and is apparently influenced by the local political climate and debates on the subject of immigration. As a result, if one term is not politically correct, an alternative is used, putting many concepts under one umbrella, and letting others decide where the boundaries between the concepts are located. Such an approach complicates the task of drawing the lines between theories of assimilation and integration.

I will here draw on the concept of integration developed by German scholars Friedrich Heckmann and Hertmut Esser, who categorize the dimensions and stages of immigrant integration in a structured and comprehensible way. Comparing the frameworks of the two illustrates how closely related the concepts of assimilation and integration remain.

68

For more on the “old problem” of differentiating between integration and assimilation, see Esser, H. (2004), op. cit.

69

Penninx, R., Spencer, D., and van Hear, N. (2008), op. cit., p. 9. 70

For example, avoiding the term assimilation and using integration instead. Bosswick, W. and Heckmann, F., op. cit., p. 6.

As mentioned previously, following Lockwood’s framework, immigrant integration pertains to social integration, meaning the inclusion of immigrants as individual actors in existing social structures of the host country.71 According to Esser, the latter involves both the host society and ethnic communities.72 Immigrant integration is considered “a multilevel and multidimensional process” with different dimensions.73 Reinterpreting Gordon’s

assimilation theory, Esser proposes four basic forms of social interaction and integration into the existing social structure across four dimensions: acculturation, placement, interaction, and identification.74 Heckmann, alternatively, labels them cultural, structural, interactive, and identificational integration.75

These four categories are discussed here in more detail:

a) Acculturation (cultural integration) is the process by which an individual acquires the knowledge, cultural standards, and competencies needed to interact

successfully in a society. This stage is a prerequisite for any other form of integration. Language acquisition plays a key role in this process. Acculturation does not require that the immigrant abandon cultural practices. In contrast, immigrants may profit, ideally, from their ethnic cultures, using their biculturalism as an asset in the host society.

b) Placement (structural integration) relates to obtaining a position in society by acquiring an access to full legal rights, education, the labor market, and public institutions. One may also call it socio-economic integration in the educational or economic systems.76 Placement also implies the acquisition of rights associated with particular positions and the opportunity to establish social relations.

Integration into the labor market is a crucial part of this process.

c) Interaction (interactive integration) is the formation of relationships and communication networks by individuals who share a common orientation, resulting in membership in social groups within the host society. This integration can be in the form of friendships, relationships, marriages, voluntary activities,

71

Heckmann, F. and Schnapper, D. (Eds.). (2003). The Integration of Immigrants in European Societies. National Differences and Trends of Convergence. Stuttgart: Lucius und Lucius, p. 10. 72

Esser, H. (2004), op. cit. 73

Asselin, O., et al., op. cit., p. 138. 74

Esser, H. (2000). Soziologie. Spezielle Grundlagen. Band 2: Die Konstruktion der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt-New York, NY: Campus.

75

Bosswick, W. and Heckmann, F., op. cit., p. 10. 76

Entzinger, H. and Biezeveld, R. (2003). Benchmarking in Immigrant Integration. Rotterdam: European Research Center on Migration and Ethnic Relations (ERCOMER).

Similar to Alba’s and Nee’s definition of socio-economic assimilation as a minority participations in socio-economic institutions (e.g. on labor market and in education)

or more generally in memberships within social groups. This process of integration may of course be extended to other locations and, unlike acculturation and placement, is not bounded by the local context of the immigrant’s residence.

d) Identification (identificational integration) refers to the development of an individual’s emotional bonds and sense of belonging to a local community or country and involves immigrants forming their own perceptions of how they see themselves as part of the receiving society. This form of integration takes place at a very subjective level of the immigrant’s self-identification and is not

considered a condition for other dimensions of integration. Accordingly, one may participate in a core social structure without identifying oneself with the host society.

It should be noted that Heckmann’s dimensions of integration – cultural, structural, interactive, and identificational – have a narrower focus and refer to integration into the host society. Esser´s terminology, on the other hand, encompasses integration both into the host society and ethnic/immigrant communities. Esser places the concept of assimilation in the framework of social integration. Within this framework, he distinguishes “individual

assimilation” putting it on a par with individual integration into the host society but not with the ethnic community. Individual assimilation can occur within the aforementioned four

dimensions: acculturation, placement, interaction, and identification.77 However, the following alternatives to such complete assimilation are possible (see table 1):

Table 1 Assimilation in Esser’s Framework for Social Integration into the Host Society and into an Ethnic Group78

Social integration into the host society

YES NO

YES multiple inclusion individual segmentation Social integration into

ethnic group

NO individual assimilation marginality

a) marginality as the failure of integrating either within the host society or the ethnic community,

b) individual segmentation as integration only with ethnic community, or c) multiple inclusion as integration in both social systems (e.g. bilingualism).

77

Resulting in cultural, structural, interactive and identificational assimilation, respectively. 78

It might be assumed that complete social integration into the host society takes place only in the form of individual assimilation.

These detailed differentiations between levels of integration into ethnic communities and the host society are considered a bit too confusing for the purposes of this thesis. Since the scope of the empirical research in this work is more oriented toward the host-society, throughout the dissertation the concept of immigrant integration will be used with reference to a given host society only, without reference to existing ethnic communities. Moreover, it is crucial to keep in mind that Heckmann’s understanding of social integration into the host society adopted in this research corresponds to Esser’s individual assimilation.

Esser’s and Heckmann’s frameworks address integration in a very structured way and seem to be the most transparent ones for application in research. 79 However, in using any framework, one runs the risk of oversimplifying individuals’ integration process in different contexts. It is important to be aware of these limitations during any empirical study. In fact, the confusion over integration extends beyond theoretical concepts and terminology to application of the theories in practice at the national and local level, which will be explored in later chapters.

There is an ongoing debate on whether integration should be viewed as a one-way or two-way process, in other words whether a prerequisite for successful integration involves adaptability on the part of immigrants only or of the host community as well. The need for a contribution on the part of the local community toward the process of immigrant integration remains a very thorny issue. Opinions vary according to different political agendas and the pro- or anti-immigration moods in different local contexts.

I consider integration an interactive, two-way process between immigrants and the host society. Therefore, not only are immigrants expected to change, but the receiving society also has to be willing to absorb some new trends and to transform itself as well. At the institutional level it means being open to dealing with the challenges of immigrant integration and granting immigrants the same opportunities as other residents.

Integration should be also seen as a long-term process. The question arises then whether reaching the end-stage is feasible. Theoretically, it is possible to reach the goal of complete integration within Heckmann’s four dimensions of integration. Practically, however, it would be hard to measure the success of integration for a couple of reasons.

First, it is difficult to measure and monitor the integration process: the easiest and the most widely-used measurement methods among policy makers and researchers exist for structural and cultural integration (with such indicators as intermarriages, citizenship, level of

79

Of course, German theories are influenced by a national context of migration and integration, and these theories are not widespread in American scholarship. However, I argue that transatlantic research and theories might be more complimentary than oppositional.

proficiency with the host society’s language) while other process: interactive and identificational ones are much harder to calculate.

Secondly, some factors which influence the extent of immigrants’ integration vary. As Wayne Cornelius notes, these include:

a) the differing vulnerabilities and coping resources; b) different patterns of exposure to racial discrimination;

c) proximity to educationally dysfunctional inner-city subcultures; d) changing economic conditions (e.g. the disappearance of traditional

occupational mobility ladders triggered by economic restructuring); e) the legal and political context affecting documented and undocumented

immigrants.80

Thus individual immigrants’ attributes and willingness to integrate are not solely responsible for their integration, but a network of interdependent factors also determines the outcome of integration.

Finally, what is the mainstream to which immigrants are supposed to integrate? However absurd it may sound, defining the mainstream as an unchanging and stable strata of society is quite difficult. The host society is constantly evolving and is being challenged by ever-changing trends: globalization with exposure to new ethnic influences and increased access to distant contacts, the current political and economic situation, new transnational networks, and changing concepts of race in a particular society.81 Accordingly, new pluralistic patterns of coexistence are emerging in the host society and for the immigrants: e.g.

immigrants establishing ethnic enclaves or maintaining ethnic affiliations, while simultaneously participating in the core institutions of the host society.82 This form of transnationalism need not hamper integration and may even facilitate the building of

80

Cornelius, W. A. (1995). Educating California’s Immigrant Children in California. In R. G. Rumbaut and W. A. Cornelius. California's Immigrant Children: Theory, Research, and Implications for

Educational Policy (pp. 1-16). La Jolla (CA): Center for US-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego.

81

A dynamic process of reconstructing race constitutes an important factor influencing integration: a given skin color acquires a different meaning in different locations at different times (for example, in the US stigmatization of black-skinned immigrants has recently shifted significantly towards

discrimination against brown-colored skin, especially at the US-Mexican border).

The issue of the changing concept of race recurs among contemporary integration researchers, e.g.: - race as “mutable concept” interpreted as “a movable color line” in: Kasinitz P., et al. (2008). Inheriting the City. The Children of Immigrants Come of Age. London: Harvard University Press. p. 368;

- fluidity of racial boundaries in: Alba, R. D. and Nee, V., op. cit., p. 286;

- race as “a highly elastic concept” in: Lucassen, L., Feldman D., and Oltmer J. (2006). Immigrant Integration in Western Europe, Then and Now. In L. Lucassen, D. Feldman, and J.Oltmer (Eds.), Paths of Integration. Migrants in Western Europe (1880-2004) (7-26). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, p. 12.

82

international relations in the host society.83 In this way, the host society is never

homogenous. By the same token immigrants’ biculturalism in no way prevents them from joining the ”mainstream,” as vividly illustrated in the case of the US. As Philip Kasinitz and others argue, children of immigrants have a unique opportunity to blend their traditional and “Americanized” ways, “keeping some elements and discarding others as they go along.”84 Although some destination countries refuse to acknowledge the fact that they are countries of immigrants, the influence of new immigrant groups and the consequent changes to the mainstream are undeniable.

Since the host society is never a uniform and coherent system, integration happens to different segments of society (with immigrants’ upward or downward mobility). The

phenomenon of immigrant admission into different segments of the host society refers to the aforementioned concept of “segmented assimilation.”85 However, in the interest of employing coherent terminology the concept of segmented integration will be used here instead.86 Suarez-Orozco provides the following explanation of this phenomenon in the US:

Given their diverse origins, financial resources, and social network, immigrants gravitate to very different sectors of American society. While some are able to join integrated well-to-do neighborhoods, the majority of today’s immigrants come to experience American culture from the vantage point of poor urban neighborhoods.87

The mainstream can be understood as that part of society which takes advantage of full participation in the structures and core institutions of a society and guarantees its new members advancement and upward mobility. Therefore, the idea of joining the mainstream as a successful integration strategy does not mean joining one homogenous culture and values but this segment of society which provides opportunities for immigrants’ development and their upward integration. Ideally, immigrants should gain access to these opportunities, join the mainstream, and by the same token transform it as well. Thus neither the

mainstream nor integration to the mainstream are static.

In fact, as previously discussed, social integration is dependent both on the new members as well as those receiving the immigrants, dependent on the so-called “glue of the society.”88 Therefore, it is impossible to operationalize the concept of immigrant integration without making reference to a particular society. Although the theories of immigrant

83

For more on the correlation between assimilation and transantionalism see Bommes, M., (2005), op. cit.

84

Cited in Johnson, Al. and Menounos M. (October 15, 2008). Children of Immigrants Reshaping America. TOWSON, NBC News.

85

Portes, A. and Zhou M., op. cit. 86

Following Bosswick, W. and Heckmann, F., op. cit. 87

Suárez-Orozco, C. and Suárez-Orozco M. M. (2001). Children of Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 157.

88

integration presented here might seem to be abstract now, without reference to particular conditions, they will be contextualized in later chapters with case studies on managing of immigrant youth integration. Of the multitude of complex fields of integration processes, the focus for this dissertation will be on the management of integration into the labor market as the most crucial dimension for immigrant youth integration.