Rethinking the Concept of Acculturation Implications for Theory and Research

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3700543/

by Seth J. Schwartz, Jennifer B. Unger, Byron L. Zamboanga, and José Szapocznik

The article focuses on mental health among migrants and tries to find ways to better understand the health and well-being of the migrants.
The authors see acculturation as a multidimensional process caused by the meeting of cultural heritage that is ingrained in the migrant and the cultural practices, values etc. that are received from a new environment.
They define acculturation as "changes that take place as a result of contact with culturally dissimilar people, groups, and social influences" (here they quote Gibson, 2001). They also make the distinction that acculturation research usually focuses on people who are permanently settled in a new country such as refugees, immigrants and asylum seekers.
They are outlining, as one of the main issues, the differences that migrants coming from a collectivist state (Asia, middle east, Africa) might encounter once they find themselves in an individualistic environment (USA, Australia, Europe etc).
Initially, acculturation was considered as unidimensional progress, where the migrant would naturally give up their cultural heritage in order to embrace the new culture. (On a racism/intolerance tangent, there has been evidence that natives still expect this process to work this way. "In X country we speak this, we eat this, we behave like this, so you should too").
*Berry, 1980* cultural psychologist, created more categories of acculturation: assimilation (adopts the receiving culture and discards the heritage culture), separation (rejects the receiving culture and retains the heritage culture), integration (adopts the receiving culture and retains the heritage culture), and marginalization (rejects both the heritage and receiving cultures). Integration (or biculturalism) is the most positive psychosocial outcome, especially among young immigrants.
If your country is similar to the new one then you probably will have an easier time integrating and adapting to the culture.
One of the most prominent criticisms against the current acculturation literature is that they seem to focus on a "one size fits all" approach. The migrants are all equally compared to Barry's 4 categories, without taking much into consideration the differences among the migrant groups. It is therefore relevant to take into consideration ethnicity, culture but also language.
In the article they also analyse the types of migrants, so are they sojourners, refugees, economic migrants, asylum seekers etc. They also talk about the different treatment class may give to these migrants (depending on how much you contribute to society, you are either welcomed or not). They note that discrimination against them may cause difficulties to adapt to the new culture, values and practices. This is also especially true to those migrants (refugees and asylum seekers) that had a traumatic experience in their home countries. These discriminatory behaviours and therefore the difficulties in adapting can also affect the migrant's future generation. According to Rumbaut (2008) and Berry (1980) when a migrant, especially of an ethnic minority, experiences discrimination, they are more likely to keep to their own and resisting adoption of the new culture. This is named reactive ethnicity.
Migration doesn't occur at random, the voluntary migrants or asylum seekers will move towards the places that will give them the most benefits, or that need their labour the most. So if a country is in need of manual labour, migrants that will be able to fulfil that role will move to that area. Generally, voluntary migrants will move where they feel there is the most need for them, meaning that they will thrive more financially.
Individuals who migrate as young children will have an easier time adapting compared to individuals who migrate at an older age. Some researchers would call them 1.5 generation immigrant" referring to their similarity in adaptation patterns with second-generation than o those who migrated as already young adults or older. The older the migrant will be, the harder it will be for them to adapt, some may even be unwilling. This is due to their strong connections to their home country and culture.
The article highlights also that some second-generation immigrants may face no acculturation as they consider themselves fully part of that culture, but this in itself happens especially to the ones who look like the natives, and therefore are not questioned about their ethnicity or seen as "the other". Visible-minority individuals, therefore, have to come to terms with their ethnicity while others do not.
Acculturation may also differ in later-generation immigrants who reside in ethnic enclaves (Chinatown, Little Italy and such) where their culture of origin is practised over the receiving cultural values. This means that the migrants residing in these enclaves may choose to barely interact with the receiving culture and this can also encourage the younger generations to speak the language and practice their native believes and cultures.
The Immigrant Paradox refers to the negative health outcomes registered in immigrants who have been perfectly assimilated in the new culture and retail little of their previous one (1.5 generation or second generation onwards). The writers, however, believe that the research is too unilateral. Though through smaller samples of Hispanic college students it was found that the ones participating in Hispanic societies and such were generally healthier, showing that biculturalism is the healthiest outcome for immigrants (CHECK THIS SECTION AGAIN).
Acculturation is often looked at through the way that migrants retain their language and customs of origins. Some studies conducted on Asian Americans however, showed that, though they may not use or speak the native language of their parents they still retained many of their cultural values and felt strongly attached to them. The same thing found for the Hispanic second generation.
Many migrants may go through what can be considered "finding their ethnic identity". This is seen as the process of exploration of what their ethnic group means to them and affirmation, so how attached they feel to the ethnic group. Not much has been studied though on their American Identity, so how much they feel attached to American culture.
It is widely recognised that something changes in the migrants through the process of acculturation though it may seem hard to pinpoint what that is.
Acculturation isn't one-dimensional, not all migrants go through the same process. If Arab migrants settle themselves around an Arab community they will not feel the need to change their values too much, but if they move to an area that is predominantly occupied by natives, then there might be a more substantial change.
They note that migrants can be bicultural, where they retain some of the culture of their home country as well as some of the receiving country. They think that biculturalism is most common in communities where both heritage and receiving cultural streams are endorsed. They found that biculturalism can show in 2 ways: the individual keeps the two cultures separate, sort of switching on and off between the two, while others may merge the two cultures into one, creating a unique blend. Blended bicultural individuals report having higher self-esteem and better mental health overall. They also experience less acculturation related stress, because they naturally navigate situations where one culture may call instead of another.
Acculturative stress refers to the adverse effects of acculturation on mental health caused by 2 options: the reviewing society isn't happy with the amount of effort and success that the migrant put on adapting, or the heritage-culture community isn't happy with how much of the heritage culture has been lost in that individual. Becoming bicultural is a way to resolve acculturative stress.

SECTION 1 _ Articles and Extra Theory

Confirm copying