Conceptual framework

Figure 5.1 presents the conceptual framework that connects the four different outcomes regarding partner choice and marriage to the four different acculturation trajectories, as distinguished by Berry (1997). We added a sliding scale in terms of social inclusion and exclusion. Simultaneously, we think that the different marriage types give a good indication of how rigid group boundaries are, and the degree to which migrants experienced a change in their identity and their feelings of belonging.

Figure 5.1 Conceptual model assortative mating by geographic origin, acculturation and social in- and exclusion

According to our conceptual model, migrant groups who married natives assimilated into the host society. This group of outsiders had become full insiders. Group boundaries between these

142 migrants and the native population had become blurred or had faded away completely. These migrants had their most intimate relations - emotional and sexual - with natives, who accepted them as social equals. This suggests that major socio-cultural differences between the two groups had faded away, and that the migrants’ identity and feeling of belonging had changed. Moreover, the feelings of the natives towards the migrants had also shifted.

Migrant groups that married migrants with another geographic background experienced

integration. These migrants had their most intimate contacts with people outside of their own

group. Group boundaries were less rigid than among migrant groups that experienced separation, but they stayed largely detached from the native population. This group of migrants probably experienced a change in identity and belonging, but they did not necessarily identify themselves with the native population and the majority culture.9

Migrant groups that married migrants from the same geographic background went through a process of separation. These migrants had their most important and intimate relations with people from their own group and they probably maintained their cultural heritage and identity. The social distance between this group of migrants and other groups remained the same or was even reinforced. These migrants largely remained outsiders in the receiving society, and probably experienced segregation in the labour and housing market. Nevertheless, a certain level of social inclusion had taken place, since they had been able to enter matrimony in the receiving society at a time in which a marriage entailed serious economic and legal requirements.

Finally, migrant groups that stayed single over longer periods of time experienced

marginalization. These migrants either did not manage to fulfil the economic or legal

requirements for marriage or they did not meet the partner they wanted to share their life with. This might be due to discrimination or individual characteristics that were considered unfavourable in the marriage market. However, these migrants might also have deliberately distanced themselves from intimate relationships with people in the city. That is not to deny the fact that they stayed outsiders in the marriage market. This group of migrants did not form roots in the receiving society and remained outsiders.

9 _{We have a somewhat broader interpretation of the concept of ‘integration’ than Berry, following the path of}

segmented assimilation theory by Min Zhou & Alejandro Portes (1993). We reason that these migrants might start to behave like and identify themselves with other groups of migrants and their culture instead of

assimilating to the native population. For Berry, integration means that migrants keep their own culture and identity. We believe, however, that intensive interaction with other social groups affects their own culture, identity and feeling of belonging.

143 It is important to underline that this model is operationalized at the individual level, but that the results only refer to the group level. Our model does not state that all migrants who married natives assimilated, or that all newcomers who did not marry were marginalized. We analyze only the sum of individual behaviour, and we believe that, in that sense, our four meeting and mating outcomes are good proxies for the different acculturation trajectories distinguished by Berry, and the degree of social inclusion/exclusion migrants experienced.

At this point, we would also like to stress that our model in its present form is only valid for societies in which marriage is the norm. Getting married demanded serious economic and legal requirements and staying single over longer periods of the life course was coupled both with stigma and an increased risk of economic insecurity. This was clearly the case in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Western Europe, as we have outlined in the previous chapter.

Lastly, many of the more classic assimilation studies often assume that permanent settlement and assimilation are central aims of the migrants, and the acculturation process is often described in terms of ‘success’ and ‘failure’. We know from recent studies, however, that not all migrants at the time aimed to stay permanently in the city and that they did not necessarily want to marry there or adapt to the native population (cf. Hochstadt 2002). Accordingly, not staying in town and not marrying does not mean that these migrants failed somehow or that they did not make their dreams come true. It is clear, though, that the acculturation process of migrants who remained unmarried and migrants who stayed single in the city differed from migrants who settled and married. In addition, it is informative to study who the partners of married migrants were.