Assimilation Theory

The first scientifically-oriented assimilation theory can be traced to the 1920s, in the Chicago School of Sociology, with Robert E. Park and Ernest W. Burgess. They based their concepts on the close observation of the urban environment around them.47 Their early definition of assimilation referred to “a process of interpenetration and fusion in which persons and groups acquire the memories, sentiments, and attitudes of other persons and groups and by sharing their experience and history, are incorporated with them into a common cultural life.”48 Soon, Park became a pioneer of “race relations cycle theory,” which claims that relations between migrants and non-migrants go through the sequence of contact, competition, accommodation and eventually assimilation.49 In contrast to what is

45

Pickus, N., op. cit., p. 160.

Hollinger, D. A. (1995). Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism. New York, NY: Basic Books. Pickus revised the theory of Americanization as a form of civic nationalism: “a conception of

citizenship which can engage citizens in negotiating multiple identities and institutional relations, while emphasizing a sense of attachment to a broader whole that integrates those commitments.”

David Hollinger, in his vision of “Postethnic America,” proposed cosmopolitanism as a reinterpretation of the multiculturalists’ ideology, allowing for a shift in ethnic boundaries and multiple identities with recognition of the value of one American national culture. Postethnicity gives individuals freedom of choice regarding their identities, not confining them to any ascribed ethno-racial groups. These ideas will be further developed in reference to the US and EU member states in chapter 4.

46

Waldinger, R. (2007). Transforming Foreigners into Americans. In M. Waters and R. Ueda, (Eds.), The New Americans. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 139.

47

Asselin, O., et al., op. cit., p. 134. 48

Park, R. E. and Burgess E. W. (1921 reprint 1969). Introduction to the Science of Sociology, Chicago University of Chicago Press, p. 735. Quoted in R. D. Alba and V. Nee, op. cit., p. 19. 49

often believed, these first concepts of assimilation theory should be understood as a two-way process of interaction between newcomers and the residing inhabitants, living in “cultural solidarity”50 without eradication of immigrant ethnic culture.

William L. Warner and Leo Srole introduced the familiar concept of assimilation as a one-sided process, as a “straight-line assimilation theory,” according to which all immigrant groups would inevitably evolve toward the American way of life at their own pace.51

Furthermore, a multitude of concepts and theories about assimilation were synthesized by Milton Gordon in Assimilation in American Life, in which he introduced a multidimensional index of assimilation variables: cultural, structural, marital, identificational, attitude receptional, behavior receptional, and civic. Acculturation, a one-way process of adopting the unchanged core culture, was supposed to be a prerequisite for further structural assimilation, that is for an entry into the socio-economic mainstream. In Gordon’s framework only the latter would lead to other dimensions of assimilation.52

A radical version of a one-sided assimilation model triggered many hostile reactions. Tamotsu Shibutani and Kian Kwan argued that the success of structural assimilation is largely influenced by categorization of human beings, which results in the creation of social distance. Referring to the Chicago School of Sociology, they claimed that the boundary between ethnic groups mostly stems from competition for resources and symbolic domination.53

Another skeptical reaction to straight-line assimilation was raised by Herbert Gans in his bumpy line theory. According to Gans, assimilation may not turn out to be such a smooth process and may result in either upward or downward mobility.54 Similar doubts can be found in the notion of ”segmented assimilation,” introduced by Alejandro Portes and Min Zhou, who argue that immigrants are incorporated in different strata of the host society, either moving into the middle class or into a disadvantaged social strata.55

Currently, there is a tendency among scholars towards recovering the original concept of assimilation. Relating to the significance of social boundaries, Alba and Nee remake the concept of assimilation through the notion of an “assimilatory boundary change.”56 The latter implies narrowing social distances between immigrants and the

50

Ibid., quoted in O. Asselin, et al., op. cit., p. 134. 51

Warner, W. L. and Srole L. (1945). The Social Systems and American Ethnic Groups. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, p. 292.

52

Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

53

Shibutani, T. and Kwan K. (1965). Ethnic Stratification: A Comparative Approach. New York, NY: Macmillan Company. Quoted in R. D. Alba and V. Nee, op. cit., p. 32.

54

Gans, H. (1992). Comment: Ethnic Invention and Acculturation. A Bumpy Line Approach. Journal of American Ethnic History 12, 42-52.

55

Portes, A. and Zhou M. (1993). The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530 (1), 74–96. 56

receiving society, described as the “attenuation of distinctions based on ethnic origin.”57 Assimilation is reinterpreted as a two-sided process, as “members of the minority must seek entry into social contexts occupied by majority group: and members of the majority must find their entrance acceptable.”58 This marks a return to the first two-way concept of the

assimilation theory, developed by Park and Burgess, with some innovations. The new assimilation theory allows for alternative patterns of incorporation: assimilation is not inevitable nor is it irreversible. Assimilation depends on many factors such as individual choices, the collective actions of ethnic groups, and institutional mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement of assimilation. Therefore, in this “remade” assimilation theory great emphasis is placed on interdependencies among the individual, social groups and the system.

The rhetoric of integration and assimilation is influenced to a great extent by the historical context of migration movements in a given time and place. Accordingly, a European perspective must be different from an American one.59

With the rise of the importance of the nation state and citizenship in the late-

nineteenth and twentieth centuries in Europe, policies of assimilation were associated with cultural suppression, forcing minorities to adapt to the mainstream. Assimilation became a taboo concept after World War II, as a reaction to the extremist nationalism and the

expulsion of minorities.60 Many researchers and policy-makers nowadays seem to stick to the concept of integration rather than assimilation. The word “integration” is more politically correct and does not have bad connotations. In the US on the other hand, the society is more used to the idea of building one nation out of many cultures, due to “a progressive shrinking of socially relevant differences between groups.”61 Therefore, the concept of assimilation is not as loaded as it is in Europe, where it is highly politicized and associated with the enforcement of constraints and limitations on immigrants.62

57 Ibid., p. 39. 58 Ibid., p. 286. 59

The use of the notion of Europe or European might be confusing, as it has many diverse intellectual, cultural, and political interpretations. Research on “Europe” might be biased and reductive,

overlooking the diversity of countries within the continent of Europe, especially in the comparative America – Europe discourse. However, some argue that it is legitimate to consider the common political and cultural make-up of Europe, taking two important factors into consideration: 1) the long history of European nation states characterized by common events on the continent and 2) the current trend towards increased unity in Europe within the structure of the European Union (especially since the fall of the Iron Curtain and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc of Communist states). At the same time, it is important to be aware of the national peculiarities of the EU member states, which determine their different approaches to official EU politics and recommendations. This dissertation follows these assumptions and provides more insights into the EU integration framework and the different Polish and German experiences with migration and integration in chapter 4.

60

Bosswick, W. and Heckmann, F., op. cit., p. 4. 61

Asselin, O., et al., op. cit., p. 136. 62

The current use of the term of “integration” instead of “assimilation” in policy-making in Europe might in some cases represent a cover for strict policies to curb cultural diversity, which is thought to pose a

However, a new interpretation of assimilation theories has also been traced in Europe, though perhaps to a lesser extent than in the US. More researchers refer to integration as assimilation nowadays, signaling the need for reconceptualizing the implications of assimilation in light of a new trend towards transnationalism.63 These two processes of assimilation and transnationalism can in fact be viewed as complimentary. In face of growing transnational connections Michael Bommes provides an interesting

interpretation of assimilation as a unifying process for all individuals, irrespective of their ethnic background. According to Bommes, assimilation is a general necessity for all individuals who want to succeed in modern society, not merely immigrants. By the same token, transnationalism with cultural plurality and assimilation is not contradictory. Whoever wants to gain access to society has to fulfill “the bundles of social expectations” about the given roles they take in the society. Therefore, the issue of immigrant assimilation

corresponds to more or less favorable conditions of participation in social systems.64 Assimilation is still perceived as a change process both for immigrants, assimilating to the expectations linked to their new roles, and the social systems, transformed by the immigrants themselves. “They [immigrants] not only do conform to these expectations, but they develop corresponding expectations' expectations.”65 Again, the commonly accepted perception would be that the host society should be willing to undergo change in order to guarantee social cohesion. Such an approach corresponds to Alba’s vision of assimilation as “assimilatory boundary change.”66

There are some more points of convergence in theories and trends in research on assimilation in America and in Europe. As Nee and Alba rightly point out:

The theoretical framework [of American concepts of assimilation] can be extended to global cities elsewhere by taking into account the differing institutional contexts, especially with respect to cultural beliefs and the informal and formal rules governing citizenship. The theory of assimilation turns on distal causes stemming from the institutional mechanisms of

monitoring and enforcement that structure incentives in the institutional environment.67

danger to the cohesion of European society. For more on such political symbolism see later sections of this chapter and Asselin, O., et al., op. cit., pp. 136-137.

63

For example see:

- Morawska, E. (2002). Immigrant Transnationalism and Assimilation: A Variety of Combinations and the Analytic Strategy it Suggests. In E. Morawska, and Ch. Joppke, (Eds.), Toward Assimilation and Citizenship in Liberal Nation-States (133 -176). London: Palgrave Macmillan;

- Bommes, M. (2005). Transnationalism or Assimilation? Journal of Social Science Education 1; - Esser, H. (2004). Welche Alternativen zur ‘Assimilation’ gibt es eigentlich? IMIS-Beiträge, 23, 41 - 60.

64

Bommes, M., (2005), op. cit. 65

Ibid. 66

Alba, R. D. and Nee, V., op. cit., p. 286. 67

Nee, V. and Alba R. (2009). Assimilation as Rational Action. The CSES Working Paper Series, Paper 46. Ithaca, NY: Center for the Study of Economy and Society.

With regard to possible synergies among transatlantic perspectives on assimilation, one should take into account national and local differences, although the theoretical

frameworks seem to have very much in common on both sides of the Atlantic.