Acculturation strategies

Acculturation comes into question when people leave their home and move to another place, often abroad. Therefore the term mostly refers to immigrants. With the encounter of the cultures, personal attitude (rooted in history, traditions and customs or outside circumstances) will determine how the individual adapts himself or herself to a new culture (Kitzinger, 2009 b). Among acculturation strategies, Rédei (2007) mentions two major classes: integration and assimilation, which seems to be a simplification of the phenomenon. It is better to turn to a more detailed and clarified analysis. The term, ‘acculturation strategies’ was first used by Berry (1997), who alternated his own previous term, ‘acculturation attitudes’ (Berry, 1980).

Acculturation basically depends on two key factors: how the individual approaches his or her own culture and what his or her relation to the majority culture is like. On the combination of these factors the following pattern will emerge (Figure 9):

39

Figure 9. Acculturation strategies on the basis of Berry (2008)

Integration (Kitzinger, 2009 b) is the process when immigrants manage to accept the majority culture while preserving their own. There is an ideal balance between immigrants’

own culture and that of the receiving country. This balance, however, is fragile and there are usually anomalies either toward one’s own culture or towards the culture of the majority. By integration Rédei (2007) means the adjustment and fusion of a small part into a large unit emphasising that in sociology it indicates the integration of the minorities into the majority society.

Integration (Feischmidt, 1997) at the same time is a bi-directional process which produces a new culture which is represented in the state, especially in state institutions and in education. However, in the private sphere there is still the opportunity of maintaining one’s own culture. Integration (Fleras  Elliot, 1997) was initiated by liberal democratic societies whose aim was to cancel racist laws and segregation, for instance with the abolition of colour bars in schools (in Ontario it happened only in 1964). Integration, despite assimilation which will be discussed later in this chapter, is a dual-way process where a new unity is born from major and minor cultures and societies, for instance with the help of intermarriages and education.

When the individual cannot detach from his or her own culture and completely rejects majority culture, he/ she separates (Kitzinger, 2009 b). In this case the immigrant is not able to accept the values of the receiving country, which means a cutting away from the society he/

she lives in. It is a common phenomenon which could be called ‘forced emigration’ (2009, p.

27). It can be noticed in the cases where the individual does not leave his/ her homeland voluntarily. Separation and segregation complete each other as they are on the sides of the

40 same coin, states Wetzel (2011). While separation belongs to the strategies of ethnocultural groups, segregation refers to the strategy of the larger society (Berry, 2008). In segregation (Fleras  Elliot, 1997) the society is split into dominant and subordinate groups which live in social, cultural and legal divisions and where there is no transit between the two groups.

Rédei (2007) determines segregation as the detachment of social groups from the majority society. She uses the categorisation of de jure (legal) and de facto (practical) segregation. An example for the first can be the apartheid regime in South-Africa where segregation was legal. Another case is when segregation is not supported by the law, yet it exists, for instance in the southern states of the USA, where poverty, high unemployment rate and discrimination hinder the settlement of Afro-American population. What is interesting here is the fact that segregation remained even when Afro-Americans immigrated to the northern cities and lived in the impoverished ghettos. Therefore, segregation might influence the image of the cities and the landscape as well.

In conclusion, segregation (Feischmidt, 1997) is a detaching tendency which is usually supported by certain political groups and its major element is inequality. The problem of segregation is still alive. One of the solutions could be if citizenship were given according to territorial principles and not with “ties of blood” (1997, p. 14).

Reasons for separation can be various, e.g. war, revolution or economic difficulties.

Similar reasons can be noticed in connection with assimilation (Kitzinger, 2009 b), too, but individual reaction is just the opposite of the reaction in the case of separation: the individual tries to exclude the country left behind. At the same time, assimilation may be the result of fear: parents want their children to grow up in a new world forgetting their parents’ roots, traditions and culture.

It was Gordon, who elaborated the concept of assimilation in 1964. According to his often cited work, Assimilation in American Life: the Role of Race, Religion, and Natural Origins, assimilation is influenced by seven factors (Rédei, 2007): 1. acculturation (adoption of language, customs, values and norms), 2. structural assimilation (minorities participation in local groups), 3. marital assimilation (intermarriage), 4. identification assimilation (exclusive bond to the host society and its culture), 5. attitude reception (absence of prejudice), 6.

behaviour reception (absence of discrimination), 7. civic assimilation (absence of power struggles). Assimilation as a process has been finished if all these conditions are fulfilled.

During assimilation the individual or the group partially or entirely lose their own language, customs, and values while take over those of the host society. Despite multiculturalism in which diversity is a value which is worth maintaining, assimilation is based on homogeneity.

41 Gordon differentiates two types of assimilation: cultural and structural (Feischmidt, 1997) where the first one involves the assimilation into the lifestyle of the majority culture, while the latter refers to the assimilation into the hosting country’s (legal, social and educational) institutions. Assimilation (Fleras  Elliot, 1997) is also a historical phenomenon where the aim is to meld minority into the mainstream society and it reflects the superiority of the West. In some places it was going in an openly racist form, while more refined tools can be noticed in the policy of state in the area of schools (education) and church (religion).

Marginalization (Kitzinger, 2009 b) is a relatively rare and the most problematic phenomenon. It might happen especially under circumstances where religious and cultural differences are considerable. In this case individual excludes him- or herself from both cultures: he/ she lives his/ her life as a rootless, rebellious, self-destroying alien. Marginalised children, while rejecting their parents’ culture, cannot completely accept the culture of the host country either. They often find themselves on the margin of the society.

In his noteworthy article Chambers (2010), also on the basis of Berry’s (2008) spreading concepts relates the acculturation strategies to Hungary. He makes a comparison of Canada’s, the USA’s and Hungary’s migration policy and arrives at a conclusion that Hungary is painfully delayed in passing a migration law; which would naturally, have an impact on education, work and everyday life of both the lives of the migrants and Hungarians’. He warns Hungarians that they cannot avoid the modern flows of migration and gives a graphic example of American and European nations who have already faced challenges, and chose from among different alternatives. Although he tends to draw some haphazard conclusions (for instance about the Czech student who feels uncomfortable in Hungary) and uses an imprecise term (“Carpathian plains”) (2010, p.113), his advice about a proper law would be more than desirable to follow.

If a closer look is taken at acculturation strategies, it is not difficult to see that whole societies and political systems are built on them. Just to mention the two most obvious:

Canada is often represented with the metaphor of the “mosaic”, while the USA is the home of a “melting pot” (Fleras  Elliot, 1997). Victoria Hayward, a writer shows the cultural changes of the Canadian prairies as a "mosaic" as early as the 1920s in a very graphic picture (Day, 2000):

"New Canadians, representing many lands and widely separated sections of Old Europe, have contributed to the Prairie Provinces a variety in the way of Church Architecture. Cupolas and domes distinctly Eastern, almost Turkish, startle one above the tops of Manitoba maples or the

42 bush of the river banks. These architectural figures of the landscape, apart altogether of their religious significance, are centers where, crossing the threshold on Sundays, one has the opportunity of hearing Swedish music, or the rich, deep chanting of the Russian responses;

and of viewing at close hand the artistry that goes to make up the interior appointments of these churches transplanted from the East to the West… It is indeed a mosaic of vast dimensions and great breadth, essayed of the Prairie."

There is a sharp contrast between “mosaic” and “melting pot” where the first concept stresses the cohabitation and cooperation of diverse groups and the latter expects the immigrants and minorities to give up their own cultural identity and assimilate into the mainstream culture (Fleras  Elliot, 1997). The two acculturation strategies affect the language policies of the states as well. Although at the beginning of the nation diversity was a highly valued trait of US society, by the late 19^th century an “English-only, standard-English-preferred policy was institutionalised though not legalized”, as Heath and Mandabach point out (Phillipson, 1992, p. 21). It is the reason why the following situation could be highlighted by Pfeiffer (Phillipson, 1992, pp. 21-22): ”Navajo children are taught in a foreign language:

they are taught concepts which are foreign, […] values that are foreign, […] lifestyles which are foreign and they are taught by human models which are foreign”.

2.3.4 Brief summary

This chapter gave some relevant definitions and explanations for the most important sociological elements. Therefore, the term ‘culture’ and its relations like multiculturalism, interculturalism and identity came into limelight. The aim of this chapter was to show their relevance in educational situations as well. Findings show that, that just like in the case of linguistic terms (cf. 2.2.1), there are no ready-made definitions for cultural terms and phenomena. Additionally, there is still a gap in teaching culture and multiculturality, especially in Hungarian education. With this drawback, the kindergarten teachers in Pápa have to establish a new type of institution in Hungary, where different languages and cultures play an important role. The matrix of acculturation strategies will serve as a useful device for the educational staff to identify the theoretical background and handle the different multicultural aspects in the present research field. From now the secondary research will concentrate on the actual setting and get closer to language pedagogical problems in the following chapter.

43