Assimilation Theory

Assimilation and integration can be examined through micro-sociological and macro-sociological perspectives, which means individual or group perspectives (Schunck 2014). Most American researches prefer to use the term assimilation, while Europeans mostly talk about integration, which leads to confusion in the literature (Vermeulen 2011).

Assimilation theory can be traced back to the Chicago school to describe the immigration to the United States in the 20th century. One of the first attempts to describe assimilation was Race Relation Cycle model by Chicago School sociologist Robert E. Park (Schunck 2014). Park saw competition for resources such as housing or jobs as a major driving force in relationship between immigrants and local population. He described the four stages of interaction between immigrants and local population: competitions, conflict, accommodation, and assimilation.

Figure 1.1

Park’s Race Relation Cycle

First stage: Competition (in the labour and housing market)

Second stage: Conflict

(local population only allows immigrant to take low skilled jobs)

Third Stage: Accommodation

(acceptance of ethnic division of labour and stratification)

‧

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

This model has been criticized for being simplistic, linear, and resulting only in assimilation as the last stage (Schunck 2014). However, this was one of the first attempts to describe the relationship between immigrants and the major population.

The classic assimilation theory believed that all immigrants would eventually assimilate in the country, and the cultural differences would become non-existent, even if it takes two to four generations (Enzinger and Biezeveld 2003). In fact, most researchers agree that assimilation and integration is an intergenerational process and might take three to four generations (Vermeulen 2011). In the 1960s, it began to be clear that not always the differences between cultures disappear, because even after several generations, the cultural differences were visible and even reinforced.

Immigrants communities based on the ethnicity were formed. Gordon (1964, cited in Enzinger and Biezevald 2003) suggested that there are two dimensions of assimilation. The first dimensions was structural; it stressed mainly socio-economic participation of immigrants. The second dimension was cultural; it focused on the culture and identity of immigrants. Full participation in structural dimension did not mean abandoning of the own culture and identity. However, those aspects are interrelated.

Gordon has followed the classic assimilation theory. He presented assimilation of immigrants as inevitable process that depends on time immigrant spend in the new environment.

Gordon (1964, cited in Alba and Nee 2009) described dimensions of assimilation: cultural, structural, marital, identity, prejudice, discrimination, civic. He argued that after the structural integration has occurred, the other dimensions will follow such as decrease of discrimination and prejudice towards immigrants. Gordon also introduced “melting pot” model that emphasized structural and cultural assimilation, leading to the widespread intermarriage. Intermarriage has

‧

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

become one of the measurable benchmarks of assimilation including socio-economic status, spatial concentration, language assimilation (Waters and Jimenez 2005).

Integration also has dimensions. Even though the most attention gets socio-economic (or structural) integration, participating in labour market and education does not mean cultural integration. When talking about cultural integration, the term acculturation comes in mind.

Acculturation means taking over some cultural aspects of the local environment and at the same time not completely abandoning own cultural identity such as religion (Enzinger and Biezevald 2003). This phenomenon is explained by transnationalism and globalisation.

Alba and Nee were also supporters of assimilation theory. They believed that assimilation theory is still the best way to describe the integration of immigrants and their descendants into the new society (Alba and Nee 1997). Castles (2007) suggests that the majority of research on the integration in the nation-state uses assimilation theories. Classic assimilation theory as proposed by Gordon, Alba and Nee works best when the core population (“mainstream”) is easily defined (Brown and Bean 2006). In case of the Czech Republic, which is still a homogenous country with a low number of immigration, the mainstream is easily defined.

The problem is that the majority of assimilation and integration theories were created in the United States and were describing the immigration to the United States during the 20th century, so it is questionable, whether those theories can be used in the European context (Vermeulen 2011).

Moreover, even those theories can be used to describe integration in the Western European countries with history of immigration such as France or the United Kingdom, it might not be applicable for the for the Czech Republic case. Even though, in the Ukrainian immigrants in the Czech Republic

‧

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

Enzinger and Biezeveld (2003), in their paper Benchmarking in Immigrant Integration, focus on the integration in the European context. They proposed criteria that would help to compare and evaluate immigration and integration policies in the EU, therefore, it can be used in the Czech Republic as well. They have proposed the four dimensions of integration and criteria, which the author of the thesis used to create questions for the interviews in order to describe integration process of Ukrainian immigrants in the Czech Republic. Based on the assimilation theory, there are structural (or institutional) aspects of integration and cultural ones. The structural aspect includes participation in institutions such as labour market. The cultural aspect includes attitudes and self-identification. Those aspects are interrelated. Moreover, Enzinger and Biezeveld (2003) divided the integration in socio-economic, cultural, and political dimensions. Enzinger and Biezeveld (2003) state that there is a consensus that immigration and integration are dependent on each other and successful immigration policies should include integration efforts as well.