lecture 8 Flashcards
Identity politics
■ Heywood: „a style of politics that seek to counter group
marginalization by embracing a positive and assertive
sense of collective identity” [160]
Migration
■ „An international migrant defined as any person who
changes his or her country of usual residence”
[Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration.
Revision 1, p. 9]
The concept of culture
culture as the ‘whole complex of distinctive spiritual, material,
intellectual and emotional features that characterize a society
or social group’ including ‘not only the arts and letters, but
also modes of life, the fundamental rights of the human being,
value systems, traditions and beliefs’
draw figure 2
Issue 1: maintenance of heritage, culture and identity ■ Questions: (on behalf of the minority group/an immigrant) - Do I want to keep my cultural heritage? - Do I care about my culture? - Do I want to keep my language? - Do I want to keep my traditions? Issue 1: maintenance of heritage, culture and identity ■ Questions: (on behalf of the majority group/the state) - Do I want to maintain cultural differences? - Do I like/accept cultural pluralism? - Do I allow different languages/faiths/traditions to flourish? Issue 2: relationships sought among groups ■ Questions: (on behalf of the minority group/an immigrant) - Do I want to follow the rules of new environment? - Do I want to interact/meet/work with people from other groups? Issue 2: relationships sought among groups ■ Questions: (on behalf of of the majority group/the state) - Do I want different groups to interact as equals? - Do I want to cooperate with minority groups?
What is meant by the phrase intercultural strategies is the core idea that groups and individuals (both dominant and non-dominant) living in plural societies engage each other in a number of different ways.
o Whether it is the colonizer or the colonized, immigrants or those already settled, individuals and groups hold preferences with respect to the particular ways in which they wish to engage their own and other groups.
o Finally, when examined among the dominant group, and when the views held are about how they themselves should change to accommodate the other groups in their society, the strategy is assessed with a concept called multicultural ideology
o All three sets of views are based on the same two underlying issues: 1. the degree to which there is a desire to maintain the group’s culture and identity; and 2. the degree to which there is a desire to engage in daily interactions with other ethnocultural groups in the larger society, including the dominant one.
o Underlying these two issues is the idea is that not all groups and individuals seek to engage in intercultural relations in the same way, there are large variations in how people seek to relate to each other, including various alternatives to the assumption of eventual assimilation. They have become called strategies rather than attitudes because they consist of both attitudes and behaviors (that is, they include both the preferences and the actual outcomes) that are exhibited in day-to-day intercultural encounters.
o Four strategies have been derived from these two basic issues facing all acculturating peoples: a relative preference for maintaining one’s heritage culture and identity; and a relative preference for having contact with and participating in the larger society along with other ethnocultural groups.
o These two issues are presented in Figure 2, where they are presented as independent of each other.
o These two issues can be responded to on attitudinal dimensions, represented by bipolar arrows.
o For purposes of presentation only, generally positive or negative orientations to these issues intersect to define four strategies.
o These strategies carry different names, depending on which ethnocultural groups (the dominant or nondominant) are being considered.
o From the point of view of non-dominant groups (on the left of Figure 1), when individuals do not wish to maintain their cultural identity and seek daily interaction with other cultures, the Assimilation strategy is defined.
o In contrast, when individuals place a value on holding on to their original culture, and at the same time wish to avoid interaction with others, then the Separation alternative is defined.
o When there is an interest in both maintaining ones original culture, while in daily interactions with other groups, Integration is the option. In this case, there is some degree of cultural integrity maintained, while at the same time seeking, as a member of an ethnocultural group, to participate as an integral part of the larger society.
o Finally, when there is little possibility or interest in cultural maintenance (often for reasons of enforced cultural loss), and little interest in having relations with others (often for reasons of exclusion or discrimination) then Marginalization is defined.
o This presentation was based on the assumption that non-dominant groups and their individual members have the freedom to choose how they want to acculturate. This, of course, is not always the case. When the dominant group enforces certain forms of acculturation, or constrains the choices of non-dominant groups or individuals, then a third element becomes necessary. This is the power of the dominant group to influence the acculturation strategies available to, and used by, the non-dominant groups
o As a result, there is a mutual, reciprocal process through which both groups arrive at strategies that will work in a particular society, and in a particular setting.
o For example, Integration can only be chosen and successfully pursued by non-dominant groups when the dominant society is open and inclusive in its orientation towards cultural diversity. Thus a mutual accommodation is required for Integration to be attained, involving the acceptance by both groups of the right of all groups to live as culturally different peoples. This strategy requires non-dominant groups to adopt the basic values of the larger society, while at the same time the dominant group must be prepared to adapt national institutions (e.g., education, health, labor) to better meet the needs of all groups now living together in the plural society.
o These two basic issues were initially approached from the point of view of the non-dominant ethnocultural groups. However, the original anthropological definition of acculturation clearly established that both groups in contact would become acculturated
o The concern for the role that the dominant group played in the emergence of these led to a conceptualization portrayed on the right side of Figure 1.
o Assimilation when sought by the non-dominant acculturating group is termed the Melting Pot. When Separation is forced by the dominant group it is Segregation.
o Marginalization, when imposed by the dominant group it is Exclusion.
o Finally, for Integration, when cultural diversity is a feature of the society as a whole, including all the various ethnocultural groups, it is called Multiculturalism.
o With the use of this framework, comparisons can be made between individuals and their ethoncultural groups, and between non-dominant peoples and the larger society within which they are acculturating. The ideologies and policies of the dominant group constitute an important element of ethnic relations research, while the preferences of non-dominant peoples are a core feature in acculturation research.
o Bourhis and colleagues have recently expanded on this interest, examining situations where the two parties in contact may have different views about how to go about their mutual acculturation.
o Inconsistencies and conflicts between these various acculturation preferences are sources of difficulty, usually for acculturating individuals, but can also for members of the dominant group. Generally, when acculturation experiences cause problems for acculturating individuals, or conflict between acculturating groups, we observe the phenomenon of acculturative stress
o Numerous studies with immigrant, indigenous and ethnocultural populations have shown these four orientations to be present in individuals engaged in intercultural relations
The questions of ethnicity and race
■ Ethnicity as „the sentiment of loyalty [feeling of belonging] towards a
distinctive populaton, cultural group or territorial area
”
■ Including both „racial” and cultural aspects
■ Members often seen to „have descended from common ancestors”
■ Ethnicity [also] understood as a form of cultural identity
■ „Race” – a social construct – based on selected as culturally
meaningful biological traits
Different understandings of ethnicity
- socially defined (…) on the basis of cultural criteria
[Pierre van den Berghe, Does race matter?]
The question is
– can you choose your own ethnicity?
Primordial theories: no, it’s based on your family, blood-ties, it
has been given to you
Structural theories: yes, you can influence or even choose
which ethnic group you want to belong to
Once the concept of ethnicity gets linked with racial (biological)
criteria, the choice of one’s own ethnic identity gets strictly
limited
Strategies
Strategies of ethnocultural groups
Marginalization „when there is little possibility or interest in cultural maintenance (often for reasons of enforced cultural loss), and little interest in having relations with others (often for reasons of exclusion or discrimination)” [Berry 2011: 2.6]
Separation
„when individuals place a value on holding
on to their original culture, and at the same
time wish to avoid interaction with others”
[Berry 2011: 2.6]
Assimilation „when individuals do not wish to maintain their cultural identity and seek daily interaction with other cultures” [Berry 2011: 2.6] Integration „when there is an interest in both maintaining one’s original culture, while in daily interactions with other groups” [ibid]
Strategies of larger society Exclusion – marginalization imposed by the dominant group Eg. Ethnic cleansing Strategies of larger society Segregation – separation forced by the dominant group Melting pot Multiculturalism
