This section gives a concise overview of the main theoretical approaches to the concept of integration, found in the joint literature strand of migration and integration.
There is no general, overarching definition of integration. As Castles et al. put it, ‘there is no single, generally accepted definition, theory or model of immigrant and refugee integration’ (2001: 12). Many attempts have been made to create one, which are strongly based on the perspectives from which the concept is looked at. Similarly, the notion is heavily
contextualised, primarily socially, politically, culturally, and historically. It is a slippery idea, often conflated with other concepts, such as assimilation, acculturation, adaptation,
incorporation, inclusion, insertion, settlement, denizenship, citizenship and the Race Relations approach, as Ager and Strang (2004: 32-35) pointed out based on Castles et al.’s (2001) glossary. These terms in many cases do not mirror the same forms of immigrant
incorporation; however, in others they can be used as synonyms of integration. Integration is a concept understood and explicated by numerous scholars as a form of incorporation. In the various cases, different elements of the concept have been nevertheless accorded more importance, in an attempt to capture its true meaning. The way scholars approach the issue of integration is deeply informed by their epistemological stances. Therefore, it is essential to study briefly the main theoretical frameworks around integration. Integration definitions are often distinguished based on their content. Rutter (2013)
differentiates rights-based, participation-based and outcome-based interpretations of integration. The rights-based interpretation underlines the possibility to acquire cultural, social and possibly political rights in the country of residence (Nussbaum 2000). The participation-based approach, on the other hand, stresses the importance of active participation in social structures of society as markers of integration, e.g. in the labour market. Finally, the outcome-based viewpoint gauges the ‘end products’, the results of integration, propounded to be measured with the use of certain markers (Zetter et al. 2002; Ager and Strang 2004).
According to a seminal piece on integration by Alba and Nee (1997), there are three major theoretical approaches exploring incorporation of migrants in the host society:
assimilationist, multiculturalist and structuralist approaches. The assimilationist framework was born in the US nearly a century ago and continued to be a paramount, highly influential integration theory (e.g. Park and Burgess 1921; Park 1930; Gordon 1964; Gans 1973; Sandberg 1973; Massey 1985; Gans 1992; Alba and Nee 1997). Many tried to pinpoint the essence of the concept of ‘assimilation’, with apparently certain elements in common, such as the assumption that assimilation will sooner or later happen, and secondly, that the onus is on the migrants to assimilate, meaning to become similar to the mainstream majority natives, in particular culturally. Assimilation is viewed as the harshest form of incorporation in a new society, as it requires total acceptance and interiorisation of mainstream values by migrants, while discarding their ‘original’ values is encouraged. Many critique the assimilationist approach on a number of fronts. For instance, assimilationist theory looks at society from the viewpoint of the majority population. Also, it fails to take into account the power imbalance between majority and minority groups in society, to the detriment of the latter (e.g. Gordon 1976). It also skims over the fact that neither majority, nor minority groups can be
considered as homogeneous groups (Hein 1995, in Ehrkamp 2005), which makes determining those values that are to be incorporated challenging. Further, no reassuring answers were given as to why migrant communities keep or establish plural, especially
cultural identities and affiliations (Glazer and Moynihan 1976) despite the continuous efforts to make them assimilate, or even to the questions of why and how they should position themselves in transnational social sites (Faist 2000; Glick Schiller et al. 1992 in Alba and Nee 1997), or to what extent and how transnationalism might affect assimilation (Itzigsohn and Saucedo 2002; Snel et al. 2006; Erdal and Oeppen 2013).
In the wider literature on the sociology of integration - or assimilation (to use it in an oversimplified way to refer to the US context) - acculturation inhabited an important place from very early on as part of assimilation theories. Park’s classical assimilation theory (1914), which became the dominant middle-range theory on immigrant incorporation for the next half century, viewed acculturation as the first stage of the process leading towards assimilation. Through acculturation one would embrace core values, norms and beliefs of the host society, which process would happen spontaneously (Kivisto 2005). Gordon (1964) complemented this theory along the same lines by distinguishing seven, not inevitably sequential steps to assimilation. These were (1) cultural or behavioural (meaning
acculturation), (2) structural, (3) marital, (4) identificational (meaning identification with the new culture and letting go of the old one), (5) attitude receptional (meaning lack of prejudice from the host society), (6) behavioural receptional (meaning lack of discrimination from the host society), and finally (7) civic assimilation (meaning acquisition of citizenship). He theorised that cultural or behavioural assimilation (including language knowledge), which could be understood as acculturation, would normally occur first. Yet, he perceived
structural assimilation as the most decisive one, which in turn could eventually enable other steps of assimilation to happen (1964: 81). Later, scholars critiqued these linear, so-called ‘straight-line’ incorporation theories (Portes 1995; Gans 1992) primarily for contextual reasons, for instance, as they were applied in terms of White immigrants’ incorporation in the US (Gans 1992). Also, theories hypothesising that there is an inevitable path that leads to assimilation, or total dissolution in the mainstream, were thought to be irreconcilable with multiculturalism. Kivisto (2005: 9-10), however, asserted that the postulations of the classical assimilation theory, and especially Park’s views, were largely misunderstood. According to him, Park saw assimilation, and cultural pluralism and multiculturalism not as mutually exclusive concepts. Instead, assimilation could be conceptualised as ‘a product of interaction and thus had reciprocal character’ and thus would not underpin the ‘straight-line’ assimilationist idea of a melting pot America.
Classical assimilation theory was later challenged on many fronts. New conceptual
and Zhou’s (1993) segmented assimilation theory, which contained a selective acculturation aspect; Barkan’s (1995) six-step assimilation approach focusing on ethnic minority
incorporation in the US, where the first three steps could be linked to acculturation; and also Alba and Nee’s (2003) very influential new assimilation theory. In general, scholars argued that host societies have become much more heterogeneous; the mainstream, which was more easily definable in an early 20th century US context, became significantly more diverse and fragmented in many ways, including ethnically and racially. Thus, the concept of
assimilation as applied by classical assimilation theorists could not be tenable. Certain markers, such as class and gender, should be looked at more closely (Vecoli 1995), and a balance between considering individual and group experiences should also be struck (Alba 1995). Nevertheless, assimilation still remains a very powerful concept, at least in the US context, with the acknowledgement that it is not unavoidable (see Glazer 1993; Morawska 1994; Kivisto 2005).
Although in the literature on immigration, acculturation was mainly seen as a desirable and often inevitable step to immigrant incorporation in a host country, the concept gained more prominence and became a primary interest within the field of cross-cultural psychology, especially since the 1980s. Whilst there is a large amount of research focusing on
acculturation over several generations of immigrants (e.g. Alba 1990; Der-Karabetian and Ruiz 1997; Portes and Rumbaut 1996; Rumbaut 1994), studies spotlighting first generation immigrants are significantly more scarce (e.g. Garcia-Coll and Magnuson 1997; Prilleltensky 1993), and studies dovetailing gender and acculturation are even more scant (see, for
instance, Liebkind 1996). Acculturation materialises as the outcome of contact between groups having distinct cultural features (Berry 1980), such as host society and immigrants. These intercultural contacts between populations give rise to both cultural and psychological changes at the level of the individual. ‘At the cultural level, collective activities and social institutions become altered, and at the psychological level, there are changes in an
individual’s daily behavioural repertoire and sometimes in experienced stress’ (Sam and Berry 2010: 472). Rogler (1994: 706) viewed such changes as occurring mainly in a unidirectional way, in the immigrants’ cultural values, beliefs, behaviours, language, and eventually cultural identity moving towards those of the host society. Berry (1980) devised a widely applied fourfold model of individual acculturation strategy based on the degree to which individuals would wish to maintain cultural affiliation with the home society, at the same time as striving to forge links with the host culture. These different approaches ranged from (1) assimilation (establishing links with host culture but severing relationship with home culture), (2) integration (establishing links with host culture, at the same time
maintaining relationship with home culture), (3) separation (not establishing links with host culture but maintaining relationship with home culture), to (4) marginalisation (not
establishing links with host culture and severing relationship with home culture). It is important to note that he used the notion of integration in a very specific way, to describe a specific mental attitude which could be seen as a kind of transcultural mental structure. Nevertheless, research has found that what he referred to as integration strategy led to the most adaptive and fruitful sociocultural and psychological adaptation in the host culture (Liebkind 2001; Sam et al. 2008). In the frame of the integrative acculturation strategy, individual immigrants do not dismiss home society values but rather adjust them (thus original values can and often do undergo changes), whilst adapting to those of the new society (Van Oudenhoven et al., 2006). Sakamoto (2007) noted a major shortcoming of the acculturation theory: by focusing too much on individuals’ micro-level incorporation processes, it failed to pay adequate attention to structural issues that individuals faced when navigating new culture(s). This is in line with Rogler’s (1994) earlier warning that
socioeconomic changes should also be taken into consideration when investigating acculturation.
By returning our gaze to the three main theoretical approaches to integration of migrants in host societies, the multiculturalist approach (Conzen et al. 1992) seems to take an entirely opposite stance, as it fundamentally rejects the assumption of assimilation. It calls on people not only to be aware of the presence of ethnic groups and their members in host societies but also to appreciate them. Ethnic group members are an integral part of host societies,
regardless of their level of integration observed from the perspective of the majority native group. Migrants (of first and subsequent generations) are not required to renounce their culture to become a stronger part of society as a whole. Glazer and Moynihan (1976) look at ethnic groups not as defined by their allegedly shared culture, but as interest groups (Conzen et al. 1992: 4). They posit that groups can be better deployed if organised based on ethnicity as opposed to, for instance, social class. Many nevertheless critique the multiculturalist approach. One of such loud critiques is that by overemphasising the ethnic element, less attention is paid to how migrants ‘construct their own acculturation and assimilation’ (Zhou 1997: 982) (for further critiques, see the ‘Multiculturalism and Integration’ part of the Literature Review).
As to the structuralist framework, it accentuates that the outcome of incorporation is
impacted by the structure of the society, since society is fractured along lines of structures of inequalities (e.g. Barth and Noel 1972; Zhou 1997). By accentuating the role of structures
and power inequalities, adequate importance has not been accorded to more subtle, non- macro level processes of societal incorporation. Undoubtedly, the above scrutinised three main theoretical frameworks, however, rarely explain social reality in their pure forms. Nevertheless, scholars have been attempting to define integration. Some do it in a simpler, others in a more complex way. For instance, Penninx (2005) defines integration as ‘the process of becoming an accepted part of society’ (p. 141). This apparently uncomplicated definition of integration has its strengths and weaknesses. By stating that integration is a process, it emphasises the time element and constant dynamism of the process, and as such mirrors real life situations. However, it is not clear what ‘accepted’ would mean: who would determine the rules for being accepted, or what migrants would be expected (at all) to integrate into? Also, the wording implies a power imbalance between the rule-setting society and the migrants. Even though it highlights migrants’ agency, it fails to consider underlying structures and barriers, which definitely cannot be overlooked when discussing integration. Heckmann, on the other hand (2005: 15), aims to cover more elements in his integration definition. According to him, integration is
a long-lasting process of inclusion and acceptance of migrants in the core institutions, relations and statuses of the receiving society. For the migrants integration refers to a process of learning a new culture, an acquisition of rights, access to positions and statuses, a building of personal relations to members of the receiving society and a formation of feelings of belonging and identification towards the immigration society. Integration is an interactive process between migrants and the receiving society, in which, however, the receiving society has much more power and prestige.
This definition is more ambitious than the previous one. It covers the many sites into which migrants are expected to be integrated, being the cultural, political, social and economic spheres. Although it duly enumerates processes migrants would undergo, it remains vague about the role of state or native community. Therefore, instead of listing different integration definitions, this Section 2.2.5 endeavours to explore aspects of integration that have been viewed as determinative in the integration literature.
Scholars agree that integration is a many-faceted concept with the chief aspects of political,
economic, cultural and social integration (Entzinger 2000). Which of these aspects are
emphasised more is greatly contingent on historic and socio-politico-economic
integration have also been identified. For instance, Snel et al. (2006) accentuate the
‘functional’ side of integration, meaning active participation in structural elements of society (e.g. labour market, education, housing). Zetter et al. (2002) consider two more domains of integration, legal and statutory domains, although it is not entirely clear why these latter two form distinct areas. Gidley and Jayaweera (2010) draw our attention to a type of integration which is usually not explicitly referred to as such, but which, according to them, also needs to be taken into account. This is ‘identity integration’, and is described as the extent to which migrants feel that they are part of the locality, country, and that they belong there (p. 41). They argue that identity integration is established from the bottom up, as it plays out primarily at the local level which later turns into a national level feeling of belonging. Integration is at the same time highly abstract, and practical. Therefore, to understand how it manifests itself in everyday realities of migrants, ‘indicators of integration’ were invoked. For instance, Ager and Strang (2004, 2008) devised a system of ‘indicators of integration’, classified into the following four distinct groups that mirrored the common way of
distinction between aspects of integration: (1) markers and means in the domains of employment, housing, education and health (basically structural indicators); (2) social connections such as social bridges, social bonds and social links (social indicators); (3) facilitators such as language and cultural knowledge, and safety and stability (cultural indicators); and finally (4) foundation, such as rights and citizenship (political indicators) (p. 5). These aspects of integration could certainly be closely associated with social sites where integration actually happens (Entzinger 2000). Ager and Strang’s evaluation attempts to encompass a vast array of aspects of social life and provide us with a holistic view on integration. Besides its all-encompassing nature, the argument’s strength is the seemingly equal importance given to all four indicators. However, as critiques point out, migrants may not value such areas equally (Hammond 2013) and thus some areas of integration may be more prominent, others less significant, for the individual migrants. Less ambitious interpretations of integration focus on specific sites of integration, such as the social or cultural. By doing so, they monitor integration either by using abstract, hard-to-define concepts such as embeddedness, identity, or more tangible benchmarks such as quantity and quality of social networks (e.g. Ryan et al. 2008). Scholars however agree that as integration is a composite and multifaceted concept, its manifestations are also complex and often intertwining (e.g. Penninx et al. 2008). Binaisa (2013) adds, integration can be interpreted through similarly abstract concepts, as well, such as discourses extending over public and private spheres.
From very early on, scholars pointed out that there were many areas or sites where integration could occur more easily than at other sites. For instance, an individual migrant may be well established in his/her ethnic economy and have strong social networks expanding to ethnic group members, however may have difficulties accessing mainstream labour market jobs. Gans (1992) used the term ‘bumpy approach’ for this phenomenon, to call attention to the unbalanced nature of integration (or, in his case, assimilation). He observed that second-generation immigrants, with their higher life expectations than their first-generation migrant parents, experienced difficulties in integrating into mainstream American society. The hardships, or bumps as he called them, stemmed both from the structures of society, and from the (lack of) agency of migrants. The unbalanced integration concept, however, was soon critiqued. Its opponents warned that by allowing room for uneven integration, migrants might live isolationist, so-called ‘parallel’ life (Cantle 2001) within society, by retreating into their ethnic ‘bubble’, and thus without the need to make a serious effort to integrate. Others have also opposed the concept of bumpy integration, however along different lines. Many disputed the assumption that segregation would follow ethnic minority divisions (Worley 2005; Finney and Simpson 2009), especially as ethnic minorities are socially constructed concepts with fluid borders (Yuval-Davis 1991; Anthias and Yuval-Davis 1992). They are ‘constantly recreating themselves, and ethnicity is
continuously being reinvented in response to changing realities both within the group and the host society’ (Conzen et al. 1992: 5). Moreover, if the focus of integration remains on ethnic and cultural differentiations between the majority and minority populace, certain equally important social distinctions such as gender and class could be overlooked (Wimmer and Glick Schiller 2002; Erdal 2013).
Another integration theory, the segmented assimilation theory, did not only prioritise the ethnic and racial make-up of certain migrant groups but also considered class as an important social marker. The approach, developed by Portes and Zhou (1993), shared some similarities with the parallel or bumpy integration theories in the sense that it also challenged the main assumption that incorporation into society occurs in a linear way. It accentuates different processes and outcomes, arguing that second-generation migrants may opt for different tracks of incorporation into society by choosing which segment of society they want to become part of. They posit that acceptance of White middle class American norms and culture is not the only and necessarily embraceable path to integration, but migrants may integrate into other segments of society, such as the working class, or their own ethnic community (Zhou 1997, Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Waldinger and Feliciano 2004). This questions the long-standing postulation that total assimilation naturally occurs over
generations of stay in the country of residence. Segmented assimilation is therefore not an inefficient way of incorporation, and can contribute to establishing and maintaining multiple identities (Joppke and Morawska 2003; Morawska 2004), but however can result in more pronounced social gaps between migrants and White middle-class natives (Itzigsohn and Giorguli-Saucedo 2005). The theory’s strength is that even though it gives emphasis to