Assimilation

Globalization, described as the movement of people across national borders, presents both opportunities and challenges with regard to how migrant hosting nations, ethnic cultures, and, [Page 112]indeed, service providers deal with issues of identity and difference. It is increasingly evident that theorists, policy makers, and practitioners will have to grapple with issues that arise within this “crucible of cultures” brought about by increasingly high levels of cross-border activity in the contemporary forms of migration. For politicians, social workers, and other practitioners, the increasing heterogeneity of ethnocultural identities and differences has triggered a plethora of theories and strategies for appreciating, understanding, and dealing with difference. Thus, assimilation is one such alternative, choice, concept, or approach to dealing with intercultural relations.

Within the past two centuries, following significant levels of migration, assimilation was thrust into the forefront of social academic theorizing, research, and political discussion, predominantly in America and Europe.

Assimilation at its basic level means the process by which immigrant individuals, ethnocultures, and groups adjust or are made to adjust their behavior (socially and economically) in order to assume the dominant or host or native culture. On the face of it, it may seem that considerable consensus exists regarding the meaning of the concept of assimilation. Yet when the range of points of view are interrogated, the extent of the differing perspectives around both the process and the meaning of the term assimilation emerge. Indeed, the meaning of the term has at times been notoriously elusive for Many reasons: first, because it has been contested that the original meaning and model attributed to the phenomena of the interaction between groups was viewed as far too simplistic, inept, or inadequate in explaining how new minority groups blended into the majority (normally native) groups within immigrant hosting countries over the past century. The second argument comes from concerted longitudinal studies and also a reexamination of group behaviors and community relations that revealed other equally enriching perspectives and insight into intergroup ethnocultural and social relationships and the process of arriving at a point in time where they seem to blend. These ongoing developments present new and equally valid grounds for reappraising earlier propositions, thereby contributing to the existing body of knowledge.

Thus, as a further extension of the points made above, assimilation may also be defined as the point in time at which evidence of full understanding (social and structural engagement) between the minority and majority groups becomes evident. The Chicago school of sociology in particular brought this discussion to another level at the beginning of the 20th century. During the initial theorizing assimilation was portrayed as a process that was linear, or a continuum with one end of the line depicting a distinct and definable migrant ethnic group that holds clear home cultural values, while on the other end of the continuum the groups will have adjusted into a host (native) culture enough as to be indistinguishable from that of the host ethnic/cultural group.

Perhaps it is important to state that although a sociological focus on the model of assimilation seemed to wane in the 1970s, its resurgence has been brought about by increased voluntary or involuntary migration worldwide. Voluntary migration involves the movement of people from their home country to another for economic reasons, including employment. Involuntary migration also involves the movement of people to another country, but there is an element of being forced by circumstances such as conflict, environmental disasters, displacement, or other forms of disaster. People affected by involuntary migration may seek asylum in a stable country and may be granted refugee status.

...