Jennifer Tapp

You Will Be Assimilated, Resistance is Futile…Mostly

People who choose to come to a new country to make a life and raise a family are referred to as Immigrants or Emigrants.  To immigrate is to come to a new country to live while, to emigrate is to leave your home country for another, so the difference between them is merely whether you are coming or going.   While there are always challenges when people move to a new country, one of the issues most discussed is the process of cultural assimilation. The term assimilation, when in context with immigration, is “synonymous with acculturation, used to describe the process by which an outsider, immigrant, or subordinate group becomes indistinguishably integrated into the dominant host society” (Scott).

The concept of assimilation is often juxtaposed to different ideas or concepts such as accommodation, competition, extermination and exclusion.  The idea of accommodation is identified by the subordinate group conforming to the expectations of the dominant group (Scott). The idea of competition refers to a scenario in which the subordinate group sets up its own values in opposition to the mainstream (Scott). The concept of extermination and exclusion occurs when there is no room for interaction between the subordinate groups and dominant groups (Scott). With assimilation, the implication is that the subordinate group would come to accept and even internalize the values and cultural norms of the dominant group (Scott).

So essentially, if the dominant group was made up of ‘backwater hicks’ and the subordinate group was made up of uptown socialites, the socialites would slowly adopt more and more of the hicks’ attitudes and behaviors in an effort to become part of the dominant group. The changing attitudes and behaviors of the subordinate group can be described as the cultural assimilation of the subordinate group to the dominant group.  With assimilation, it seems as though the concept of conformity seems to outweigh the concept of individuality.  Depending on your perspective, assimilation can be seen as a good thing or a bad thing: “assimilation is not always a positive experience” (Branigin).

From the perspective of the dominant group, the subordinate group is adjusting to a new way of life.  The subordinate group is potentially changing their attitudes and behaviors to suit their new lives.  For the dominant group, the assimilation process of the subordinate group is a good thing, allowing the subordinate group to function more easily in the culture they now live in and more easily be able to interact with the dominant group. However, this puts pressure on the dominant culture to expand itself to absorb the new members.  The dominant group must create the standards for assimilation, and how much change the subordinate group must undergo to become part of the dominant group.  The dominant group must also maintain that particular set of cultural customs and attitudes, remaining unchanging, stagnate, to prove the value of their right to be the dominant culture.  

From the perspective of the subordinate group, the changes could be seen as the extermination of their previous culture and belief structures.  While they may have fewer issues understanding and ‘fitting in’ with their new neighbors, they also may “have had difficulty maintaining their cultural and ethnic identity” (McDonald, 3). They change to adapt to the dominant group, to conform to avoid difficulties. In the early days of American Immigration the need to conform to the dominant group was more compulsory. Many felt that “one either automatically assimilated or [one] was immediately ostracized,” (McDonald, 3) meaning you either adapted to the dominant group or you were not part of the group, not protected or assisted by the group. You were alone.  To prevent difficulties such as this, many gave up their cultural and ethnic identity in order to adopt the cultural and ethnic identity of the dominant group.

Today, there are still issues with assimilation of immigrants, but in America, there are now several factors… [which]… allow immigrants to resist, if they choose, the Americanization [,or assimilation,] that had once been considered irresistible” (Branigin).   Advancing technology, the changing political climate and enclaves are some of the factors which are leading to immigrant resistance to assimilation.

In the early days of American immigration, people who left their families and home for a better life, would have little to no hope of being able to return to them.  The cost of passage to America from countries in Europe was greater than the price of the ticket.  Many people would grow sick or even die during the voyage from disease or the effects of poor hydration and/or food gone bad.   The immigrants left knowing they may never return to their country of origin, which made the assimilation to American culture more important to the immigrant as it would provide for the social and emotional stability they left behind in Europe.  America became their new home and they quickly became loyal to it. But today, advancing transit and technology enable immigrants to keep in close contact with family members left behind.

 Technology, such as the internet, bridges the cultural gaps and allows everyone to see and experience different cultures. The interconnectivity allows familial connections to the ancestral country and enables a constant influx of ancestral customs.   Technology also allows for face to face communication via the internet with programs like Skype and Google Hangouts.   With technology such as this, people can still be in contact with family left behind and therefore be able to maintain their native language and family relationships despite the geographic distance.  If an immigrant does well financially, they can afford to purchase transit home to visit family via plane or boat.  Travel to and from distant countries has become much faster and far safer enabling people to cross continents in mere hours, a feat which at one point required months.  Being able to return home for a visit also slows the assimilation process as an immigrant is not cut off from the culture they have left, they can still be a part of it.  The assimilation to the new culture would still occur, but slower, depending on how often contact is made.

The political climate of diversity in America, also lends immigrants more freedom to maintain their differences without fear of being ostracized or prevented from joining the dominant group.  During the early years of American immigration, political policies reflected nativist and restrictionist sentiment. Nativism is “the policy of protecting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants” (Nativism) while restrictionist refers to “a policy, especially by a national government or legislative body, of enacting restrictions on the amount of imported goods, immigration, etc” (Restrictionist). These two policies led to careful control of immigration and immigrants.  This control created a need for those who emigrated to adjust and assimilate quickly to their new society to prevent deportation. Today’s political climate is quite a bit different.  Today America celebrates cultural differences and heritage. Maintaining one’s native culture is not only expected, but encouraged, leading to group celebrations of culture specific events, such as Cinco de Mayo, St. Patrick’s Day, and Mardi Gras.  America preaches for a tolerance toward other cultures, and while not always successful, the attempt to integrate aspects of different cultures into the American experience is a strong focus. 

An enclave is a “small, distinct area or group enclosed or isolated within a larger one” (Enclave) and it is a fairly common occurrence when groups of a specific culture or ethnic group immigrate together.  A recognizable example would ‘Chinatown’ in Houston, New York or dozens of other places.  Walking through Chinatown is like walking through Hong Kong or Peking, or at least fairly close to it.  Everyone there speaks Chinese and the area functions very similar to the mother country.  Enclaves like this are essentially tiny versions of the home they left behind built in the middle of America.  Living in one of these places and raising your children there slows the assimilation process as the children are, for all intents and purposes, living in another country.  The children attend school in America, but live in China, or Germany or Mexico.  There is little to no need to assimilate while living in an enclave, as opposed to a German immigrant who is placed in the middle of California on his own.  The German will need to learn the local language to be understood.  His best chance of a successful existence there would include integrating the local culture and customs into his actions.   He will assimilate quickly for survival and success. 

Place that same German immigrant in Pennsylvania, things might go different.  There are German enclaves in Pennsylvania, where he can speak German and work and live and survive.  Outside the enclave he would need English and at least the knowledge of American custom, but he can always retreat to the tiny German country in Pennsylvania when he gets overwhelmed or teased.  His assimilation to American will be slowed, it will still happen, but it will take a lot longer, because there is no true need to assimilate to be successful in America.  He can be successful in an American Germantown without having to assimilate. As not assimilating is far easier than assimilation, it will often  be the choice of an immigrant who is offered it.

But which is better, to encourage assimilation, or to promote diversity in America? There are some native–born Americans who are somewhat divided on the topic of assimilation.  America “ increasingly promotes diversity, but there are underlying concerns that the more emphasis there is on the factors that set people apart, the more likely that society will end up divided” (Branigin). However, today’s American culture, as a whole, promotes the idea of inclusion and individuality. Assimilation with diversity…be yourself, of your own culture, as long as you are enough like us that we can interact with ease.

Works Cited

Branigin, William . " Immigrants Shunning Idea of Assimilation."Washington Post 25 May 1998: A1. Web. 7 June 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/meltingpot/melt0525a.htm>

"enclave." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 30 Jun. 2014. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enclave>.

Hipsman, Faye and Doris Meissner. "Immigration in the United States: New Economic, Social, Political Landscapes with Legislative Reform on the Horizon."MPI: Migration Policy Institute. Migration Policy Institute, 16 Apr. 2013. Web. 28 June 2014. <http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-united-states-new-economic-social-political-landscapes-legislative-reform>.

McDonald, H G, and P R. Balgopal. "Conflicts of American Immigrants: Assimilate or Retain Ethnic Identity." Migration World. 26.4 (1998): 14-18. Print.

"nativist." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 30 Jun. 2014. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nativist>.

"restrictionist." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 30 Jun. 2014. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/restrictionist>.

Scott, John, and Gordon Marshall. "assimilation." A Dictionary of Sociology. : Oxford University Press, 2009. Oxford Reference. 2009. Date Accessed 28 Mar. 2014 <http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199533008.001.0001/acref-9780199533008-e-100>.