The three theories that were utilised and drive this study

Weinreich (2008) suggests the term ‘enculturation’ as more applicable than ‘acculturation’; he alleges that, although the term ‘acculturation’ has been extensively employed in academic cross-cultural literature as an orientation to an acceptance of marginal cultures, as well as the

majority culture, it still carries a strong connotation of acculturating towards the mainstream culture; this is by losing the heritage culture to obtain aspects of the obtained culture (Weinreich, 2008).

As part of this argument, Berry has placed an emphasis on the individual level and on the actor going through acculturation. However, it is essential to keep the macro level in mind, and show the institutional and structural powers, which affect the individual in public, as it is infeasible to note the individual as an isolated actor, when it comes to reviewing acculturating into a new culture. Berry advanced his term ‘acculturation stress’ as a response to the term ‘culture shock’. It is vital to notice that acculturation stress refers only to those stressors which are related specifically with the acculturation procedure. Frequently a specific group of attitudes is connected with acculturation that can be observed as stress symptoms, such as anxiety, feelings, depression, of marginality and alienation (Zheng & Berry, 1991). However, some people see acculturative changes not as stressors, but as opportunities, and hence the acculturation experience can also be a positive one. Such factors were mentioned by Zheng and Berry (1991) as key for the development of acculturative stress. This study utilised this theory to measure the variables relevant to adaptation, as illustrated in the theoretical model formulated in Figure 3.6.

As discussed above, culture shock can be a very tough and challenging experience, a complicated way to cultural adaptation. Some experts argue that the development of accommodating and adjusting to an unfamiliar setting cannot be as uncomplicated as the U- curve envisions (Pedersen, 1995). They argue that it is unmanageable or, at the very minimum, very rare to attain a level of effortlessness in more than one culture, hence envisioning cultural adaptation in the form of a U-curve is wrong. They propose a J-curve as a more appropriate model, which explains the actual process of cultural adaptation. A J-curve is visualising the progress of individuals, who do not or cannot move forward from the reintegration stage. This pattern shows that individuals are fluent in their home cultures, and reach a certain level of adaptation and fluency in their host cultures, but argue the possibility of reaching equality between the home and host culture. People are culture-connected, which means that they are products of the cultures they were born into. According to that, multicultural identity is reached when an individual ignores their unfamiliar surroundings through the prism of their home culture. Summing up, culture shock is a complex phenomenon and, although researchers can attempt to categorise people’s experiences into

diverse stages, or judge their level of adaption by looking at their behaviour, it is difficult to provide a specific response as to how long the process of adaptation lasts, and impossible to ensure that regression to previous stages of culture shock will not take place.

3.7.1 Adaptation

It has been suggested that it may be possible to accomplish long-term adaptation, as a result of trying to cope with acculturation. It has been argued that adaptation should no longer mean a better adjustment between the individual and society, nor imply that the individual has altered to become more like the society, e.g. by assimilating. Adaptation is observed as an outcome that can be both positive and negative. However, the term adaptation appears to most often denote a positive feature of the concept, denoting well-adapted individuals. The normative term was considered that there will be different expectations about behaviour in different contexts and thus it is complicated to outline what well-adapted means. Ward’s concepts of psychological and socio-cultural adaptation are categorised as the two concepts which are most likely to describe positive adaptation. The difference between the definitions of psychological socio-cultural adaptation can be recognised as that psychological adaptation comprises mostly of an individual’s mental health, psychological wellbeing, as well as their physical condition, while in contrast the adaptation of socio-cultural is about the capability to achieve daily life routine in a newly exposed environment. Zhou et al. (2008) connect the socio-cultural adaptation with culture learning, while psychological adaptation is connected with the stress and coping approach. Experts and researchers in psychology emphasise that good social support is needed; and socio-cultural adaptation is associated with cultural knowledge, attitudes, and the degree of contact with the new culture. Whilst good psychological adaptation is associated with personal characteristics and traits, it can be concluded that the link in both psychological health as well as adaptation of socio-cultural adaptation or adjustment is ambiguous. For instance, there are individuals who adapt well to the new culture and new learning system (socio-culturally adapted), however, they fail to adapt to their situation psychologically (Zhou et al., 2008). It was therefore concluded that the three aforementioned theories were the applicable theories, which could be adopted and adapted to formulate the theoretical frame work which drives this study.