Visiones sobre el currículum.

Immigrants’ assimilation into Australian values and culture was one of the main goals of the migration policies until the 1970s. Through assimilation, immigrants would be culturally and socially absorbed by the dominant society and would, eventually, become indistinguishable from the Anglo-Australian population (Castles, 1992; Taft, 1964). Indeed, the term “new Australia” stripped away home culture (Fisher & Sonn, 2005).

As cultural pluralism and the formation of “ethnic communities” were not officially promoted, assimilation was to be achieved when nobody from the broader society would notice the physical or cultural presence of immigrants. Jupp (2002) presents two possible ways to understand the term “assimilation”. At an earlier stage, assimilation in Australia was identified as the disappearance of any characteristics that would differentiate individuals from each other. This perspective, officially adopted until late 1960’s, was the main component of the “White Australia Policy” and a requirement for admission in the country. Within this definition, colour or any physical ethnic features made non-Europeans unsuitable. In spite of later changes in Australian migration policies and the official shift from White Australia to a multiethnic country, the term assimilation continued to be used. However, what was expected from immigrants at a later stage was the adoption of Australian values, culture and language, which were considered to be uniform and evident in its British tradition.

The belief that all Australians adhere to the same cultural values and that they can trace their origins in the same monoethnic society was one of the misconceptions supporting the ideal of assimilation (Stratton, 1988, 2000). Apart from neglecting all cultural and social

impact of post-war immigration, official supporters of assimilationism also denied the presence of Indigenous people in Australia.

By the end of the 1960s the ideal to make almost invisible all immigrants, especially those from non-English speaking backgrounds, along with the purpose to promote the maintenance of a homogeneous Australia seemed unrealistic. Most immigrant workers suffered from serious labour and social segregation, had low levels of English knowledge and were living in industrial suburbs close to their workplaces in relatively poor conditions (Jupp, 2002).

The ideal of assimilating immigrants into the broader British-Australian society still influences the national ideology. In spite of the immigrant intake from a variety of cultural and ethnic backgrounds, the support provided to these ethnic groups to maintain their values and traditions was somehow limited. In fact, different ethnic groups were allowed to conserve their traditions such as religion or food preferences as long as this occurred within the privacy of their domestic boundaries or communities.

The shift towards multiculturalism embodies the need for Anglo-Australians to respect and accept cultural differences and the significance of promoting ethnic communities and institutions. Since Prime Minister Malcom Fraser (1981) took office, the ideal of a multicultural country sought to ensure that individuals from minority backgrounds were able to maintain their ethnic identity. Fraser’s government reshaped multiculturalism with an emphasis on a culturally pluralistic country, redirecting the provision of welfare services for immigrants to specific ethnic organizations (Jupp, 1995, 2002). Within this context, multiculturalism was expected to provide a better sense of national unity in an ethnically

and, as previously mentioned, the organization of the Special Broadcasting Service providing multicultural television and radio services to ethnic groups were part of the measures to ensure that the specific needs of immigrants were taken into consideration.

A political change towards multiculturalism, by accepting the relevance of the linguistic and cultural differences of each ethnic community, was expected to promote a better integration and social participation of immigrants in the Australian society. Apart from that, multiculturalism sought to leave behind racist and isolationist components of the Australian identity. As a result of this change, the country followed a more open direction towards a fair integration of immigrants, in particular those from non-English speaking countries. Nevertheless, there are still many contradictions regarding the application of multicultural policies and the real integration of ethnic minorities into what it means to be Australian.

The transfer of the immigrant’s welfare services from the mainstream social system to ethnic groups and organizations is one of the criticized aspects of the multicultural policies (Castles, 1992). This shift resulted to be a cost-effective solution for the government as staffing levels and conditions could be lower than in mainstream agencies. However, with the growing recognition of the immigrants’ potential to represent political votes, the funding of certain services enabled the government to decide which community group they would officially support and resulted, as Castles mentioned, in “a useful form of political patronage which tended to strengthen the role of traditionalist leaders” (Castles, 1992, p. 555). Apart from that, as the author pointed out, the service delivery based on ethnicity tends to segregate even more immigrants from the broader society. At the same time, ignoring ethnicity and providing their assistance within the mainstream welfare system might neglect specific needs and promote more discrimination. It seems that, in either case,

there is a mainstream deficiency in the successful application of multicultural ideals such as equity and inclusion. Besides this, minority immigrants in Australia are continually underrepresented within political, public and private institutions. It seems that Australian organizations have not changed yet in order to reflect a multicultural society and remains, until present, very much structured in British standards. People who differ from those in power because of their appearance, accent or values do not have an equal opportunity to be politically or economically represented (Castles, 1992; Jakubowicz, 1997; Jupp, 2002).

As Jupp concludes on this issue, multiculturalism has provided at the national level the awareness of various population groups, but has failed in culturally transforming its institutions. In this way, it seems difficult to understand the conservative political reaction against multiculturalism and the hostility to ethnic change during the 1990’s with the One Nation party, as multiculturalism “did not challenge the predominance of English-speaking Australian-born politicians, public servants and opinion leaders” (Jupp, 2002, p. 121).

Moreover, multiculturalism in Australia still struggles in promoting real integration. Language is observed as one of the major distinctive characteristics of a culture and a successful way to preserve values and traditions. However, courses and institutions promoting the maintenance of the community languages for second generation of immigrants are scarce. Ethnic languages in Australia are considered as “foreign” languages, in spite of the fact that 17% of the population speaks a community language (Smolicz, 1997). As assimilation is having a deeper impact especially within the second generation of immigrants who often loose mastery of their ethnic language, Smolicz (1997) proposed the encouragement of community language programs at school levels in order to favour real

The idea of the Australian Nation is, to a large extent, still based on Anglo-British cultural and monoethnic concepts. This fails to reflect the contemporary Australian reality. The fear of otherness, as Smolicz believes, would disappear “when the acceptance of cultural diversity becomes part of the overarching framework of shared values in a multicultural nation” (Smolicz, 1997, p. 182). Following that ideal, political leaders should do more to disentangle job, residential and identity segregation for minority groups, advancing on a deeper multicultural understanding that goes beyond food and festival contacts. To integrate immigrants and their families means to incorporate them into a changing Australian reality, acknowledging their role and significance in the present and future stories of the country.

Multiculturalism in Australia has certainly progressed in providing more social acceptance towards cultural differences and has promoted community organizations able to better understand the needs of different ethnic groups. Nevertheless, there are still many measures to be taken in order to equally incorporate first and second generation of immigrants from minority groups into the social fabric of the country and to be truly accepted as Australians. There is still the need to work at the political and educational levels in order to promote an ideological shift attached to the construction of Australian identity, an identity that until today is related to the white Australian dream (Hage, 2000; Vasta & Castles, 1996).

Zevallos’ (2003) research with young women of Latin American background in Australia reinforced this point. Participants of this study reported that, from their perspective, the contemporary Australian identity is still very much linked to an Anglo- Celtic ideal. Most of those young women do not see themselves as Australians as they feel

they are not accepted or seen as such by the dominant society. The constant question “Where are you from?” that most first and second generation of immigrants encounter seems like a “double edged sword question”. From one side it represents the acknowledgement of various cultural groups in Australia and could promote respect and understanding of different ethnic traditions. At the same time, this kind of question embodies the potential to isolate immigrants and their descendants due to their physical or linguistic differences. This question also implies that the person being asked “must not be Australian”, mainly as a result of stereotypes still attached to the national white identity. To the author, multiculturalism is still used in a descriptive way, serving to acknowledge and to accept the ethnic diversity of the country but without necessarily reviewing the parameters that constitutes the contemporary national identity.

Still based on external values such as physical appearance or language accent, Australian multiculturalism fails to integrate first and second generation of immigrants as members of the same society (Lopez et al., 2004) As Zevallos (2003) concluded, there are still great discrepancies between the official ideology of a multicultural and integrating Australia and the lived experiences of several immigrant groups.

RATIONALE AND CONCEPTUALISATION OF THE PRESENT STUDY

Immigration is a challenging transition that involves not only geographical relocations but also the adjustment to new economic, political and social environments. Within this process, taken for granted values, ways of communicating and behaving have to be re-evaluated as immigrants need to understand and adjust to new cultural parameters (Fisher & Sonn, 2005). This phenomenon is often more challenging to immigrants who do not possess the necessary language skills and do not have an effective social support network in the new country. The specific case of the female immigration has been under- investigated until an academic shift that originated during the 1970s (Dion & Dion, 2001; Hondagneu-Sotelo, 1992). Until then, immigrant women were mostly considered as dependents wives out of the labour force (Morokvasic, 1983, 1984).

However, studies indicated higher indices of labour participation for immigrant women than for local women in many host countries. Although most immigrant women work, they are often part of unskilled or semi-skilled jobs, where they work long hours under stressful and unhealthy conditions. Manufacturing or cleaning services are common labour environments for immigrant women with low levels of education and limited language skills (Alcorso, 1989, 1991; Boyd, 1984). This is a common outcome in Australia where immigration policies do not completely help to incorporate individuals’ educational and professional experience into the new environment (Alcorso, 1995a; Cass, Wilkinson, & Webb, 1992; DIEA, 1985). Within this scenario, immigrant women often face a more complex reality than male immigrants. Apart from adjusting to a new cultural setting and working long hours within difficult conditions, they continue to be in charge of most

domestic and family duties (Amézquita, Amézquita, & Vittorino, 1995; Moraes-Gorecki, 1991).

The specific contexts involved in the adjustment process of immigrant women still need to be investigated. The understanding of the complexity involved on female immigrants’ adjustment process seems of great value to identify conflictive factors limiting women’s educational, labour and acculturation outcomes in the new society. Further research on the issue can also suggest policy and social changes in order to provide a fair multicultural environment for newcomers and host members.

Although the Latin American immigrant community in Australia is not one of the largest immigrant groups, it represents a significant social source adding to the cultural and economic growth of the country (Botzenhart, 2006; Jupp, 2001). It certainly needs to be considered and understood. How Latin American women – who immigrated to Australia mostly during the 1970s – experienced the acculturation process and how it impacted on their lives has never been investigated.

The present research intends to explore the value of the theoretical framework presented in the previous chapters, also indicating possible limitations. The researcher expects to contribute to further academic knowledge by pinpointing factors involved in the specific case of immigrant women’s lives in Australia, their acculturation process and outcomes (understanding social, labour and political sense of integration) and ways to improve their levels of adjustment within the Australian multicultural context.

FOCUS AND RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The research is oriented towards the investigation of the following main issues:

(a) The way women experienced the immigration and acculturation process in Australia: main conflicts and challenges encountered as immigrant women in the new country.

(b) Impact of the immigration and acculturation processes on their professional, social and private lives.

(c) Self-perceived acculturation outcomes, ideals to return to the home countries and expectations for the future.

A special attention will be given to the impact of Latin American values and gender ideals on their acculturation experiences in Australia.

In this way, there are some broad guideline questions functioning as parameters for the data analysis:

- How did women experience the immigration and acculturation processes in Australia?

- How did the fact of being a woman and a Latin American impacted on participants’ adjustment to Australia?

- What are the acculturation outcomes for this group of immigrant women after an average of 31.5 years in Australia?

- How do they value/see now their decision to immigrate to Australia? Would they go back to their countries of origin?

The methodology of analysis planned for the current research is based on interpretative phenomenological analysis, a qualitative methodology developed by Jonathan Smith (2003; Smith et al., 1999). This methodology intends to allow the researcher to explore in depth how and why each participant describe her own experience, deriving from this process the main themes that can be associated to the goals of the research and to other participants’ narratives.

CHAPTER 6 METHODOLOGY