Am J Community Psychol (2008) 42:283–285 DOI 10.1007/s10464-008-9200-1
INTRODUCTION
Introduction to Special Section The Other Side of Acculturation: Changes among Host Individuals and Communities in their Adaptation to Immigrant Populations Khanh T. Dinh Æ Meg A. Bond
Published online: 16 October 2008 Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008
This special section calls attention to a neglected area of research within the field of acculturation. While there has been extensive research on the acculturative experiences of immigrants1 and ethnic minorities to host/majority2 cultures, there has been little research on the acculturative experiences of host/majority individuals and communities to various immigrant and minority groups. It is evident that immigrants and ethnic minorities are changed in various ways as a result of contact with the host/majority cultures, but individuals and communities from the host/majority cultures also have been changed as a result of their contact with immigrants and ethnic minorities. However, very little attention has focused on this latter area. As such, previous scientific inquiries have provided only half of the picture on acculturation, and inadvertently reinforced the dominant paradigm that changes only occur among the newcomers, but not the hosts. A focus on the acculturation of host/ majority individuals and communities would provide a fuller picture of the acculturation phenomenon. With its multileveled analysis of systems change, the field of community psychology can play a major role in contributing to our understanding of this other side of acculturation. It is challenging—conceptually, methodologically, and practically—to understand the ‘‘mutual’’ (mutual does not necessarily mean equal) influences of ‘‘hosts’’ and ‘‘immigrants.’’ Nonetheless, social scientists, including community psychologists, can no longer ignore the other side of acculturation as we continue to witness mass migration movements across the globe, resulting in significant changes and consequences for individuals,
communities, and societies. Within the last few decades, notable increases in foreign-born populations are evident in various countries; e.g., 24% of total population in Australia is foreign-born, 19% in Canada, 14% in Austria, 12% in Sweden, and 11% in Ireland (Migration Population Institute 2008). The Pew Research Center projected that by 2020 one in seven people in the United States will be foreign-born (Roberts 2008). Because acculturation has been defined as a process of mutual change when groups and individuals from different cultures come into continuous contact with one another (e.g., Berry 2003, 2006; Redfield et al. 1936), it is time that we begin in earnest our examination of the other side of acculturation. This special section of the American Journal of Community Psychology is a beginning. Editing this selection of articles, however, has brought home the complexity of understanding ‘‘hosts.’’ A wide array of questions emerges in thinking about the other side of acculturation. Where should we start? How do we explore it within and across different levels of analysis—individuals, groups, organizations, communities, and societies? Which existing theories should we utilize and which new theories should we develop? Which methods and tools would be helpful in examining the other side? How do we incorporate consideration of developmental, situational, contextual, political, and historical factors? How do we define ‘‘host’’ and ‘‘immigrant,’’ and where do ethnic minority groups that have been in a country for an extended time fit? What are the forces that limit mutual change of 1
K. T. Dinh (&) M. A. Bond Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Lowell, 870 Broadway Street, Lowell, MA 01854, USA e-mail:
[email protected]
Our use of the term ‘‘immigrants’’ encompasses both voluntary and involuntary immigrants (e.g., refugees, asylum seekers, etc.). 2 Our use of the term ‘‘host/majority’’ does not mean that ‘‘host’’ is synonymous with ‘‘majority’’ as there are various ethnic host groups or communities in any given country and these groups may or may not be the majority group.
123
284
immigrant and host communities? What roles do differential privilege and power play in limiting mutual accommodation of dominant and non-dominant cultural groups? These are just a few of the many questions that have emerged as we have delved farther into the other side of acculturation—it is certain that there will be even more.
Special Section Articles and Commentaries To begin to address the many questions, there are five articles included in this special section—each one explores a different aspect of the ‘‘other side.’’ Hsiao and Wittig look at differences among adolescents in multiracial ninth grade classes in Los Angeles County, California. They consider whether several dimensions of identity differ for groups that vary by ethnicity and by generational status, i.e., Latino host (self and both parents born in the U.S.), Latino immigrant, Asian-American host (self and both parents born in the U.S.), Asian American immigrant, and European-American host. They also look at whether identity issues for members of these groups were affected by a school-based program designed to encourage intergroup contact. Their results emphasize the importance of avoiding a monolithic or homogenized definition of ‘‘host’’ and of factoring into our understanding the intersections of generational status and ethnic minority status. The study described in the paper by Dinh, Weinstein, Nemon, and Rondeau also explores questions related to the impact of increased intergroup contact on members of the dominant cultural group (i.e., Euro-Americans). In this study, the authors focus on university students since, for many majority group members, the college context provides new opportunities for intercultural contact. In addition, they factor in students’ broader context and look at opportunities for contact within participants’ home communities. They found that increased opportunities for contact and exposure to Asian cultural traditions are related both to general attitudes about people of Asian ethnicity and to how well students understand issues of racism and institutional bias. In essence, the greater the exposure and contact with Asians and Asian culture, the more impact on the world view of majority group members. The first two articles look at the ways in which intercultural contact shapes identity and world view of various groups of ‘‘hosts.’’ Dominguez and Maya-Jariego look at more interconnected contact and explore the webs of relationships among immigrants and members of the dominant host culture in two related studies. In the first study, they identify the complex roles that host individuals play in immigrants’ networks in Spain. By looking at social networks, they explore the different roles that host individuals play in immigrant lives and how the centrality of
123
Am J Community Psychol (2008) 42:283–285
such people changes as immigrants settle into their new country. In a second study, they raise the question of how Boston-based human service providers change as a result of their work with clients from Latin cultures—not just in terms of providing more culturally competent services but rather more deeply in terms of changing their personal lives and networks of support. They identify varied acculturation styles among the host individuals interviewed, ranging from temporary and/or periodic involvement in LatinAmerican culture (‘‘travelers’’) to radical changes in social networks (‘‘residents’’). Looking to a broader level of analysis, Smith provides a case study of a community that has welcomed waves of immigrants beginning with German, Irish, Italian, and Polish in the late 1800s and early 1900s, to immigrants and refugees from Bosnia and Russia in the 1990s, to the most recent groups of Burmese, Somali Bantu, and Sudanese. Immigration has been so much a part of life in Utica, New York that many community members have had first-hand exposure to the immigrant experience either because of their own experience or that of parents, grandparents or other relatives. Smith provides an ecologically based analysis of the factors that have helped the community to become a welcoming setting for immigrants—including the city’s history and communitarian norms, socioeconomic climate, and the structure of the major resettlement organization. Also interested in how the broader community, and even national context, affects host acculturation, Sakamoto, Wei, and Truong look at the ways in which human service organizations in Toronto, Canada have ‘acculturated’ to an increasingly diverse immigrant population. They focus on organizations that provide services to skilled immigrants from Mainland China. Again, this is an analysis that goes beyond ‘‘cultural competence’’ of individual service providers and delves the interface between organizational policies, organizational culture, and effective service delivery. The authors then push the contextual analysis further by also looking at the influence of funding patterns and national policies that affect options both for the immigrants themselves and for the organizations developed to provide services. We invited three commentaries on these papers from people who all have considerable experience working with and thinking about immigrant groups in the United States. The commentators vary, however, both in the focus of their scholarship and in their own experiences with immigration. It is both the shared emersion in the issue of immigration and the diverging perspectives that make these a complementary set of comments. Tseng and Yoshikawa provide a commentary that encourages a reexamination of what acculturation entails. They argue for greater inclusion of analyses that go beyond the individual level, that include
Am J Community Psychol (2008) 42:283–285
sensitivity to historical context, and that incorporate an understanding of power inequities. Prilleltensky points out that many of the adaptive changes in host communities discussed in this special section are about changes made in order to better serve newcomers. Thus his commentary hones in on cross-cutting themes related to migrant wellbeing and provides a framework for understanding ‘‘sites of well being.’’ Silka reminds readers about the importance of community. Her commentary challenges us to get beyond measures of individual outcomes and to increase attention to community-level factors. Taken together, the commentaries emphasize the ongoing need to conduct multileveled, ecological analyses of host adaptation to immigrants. Future work clearly needs to be done to deepen our understanding of how host communities are enriched and transformed by immigrants and the skills, perspectives, and traditions that they bring. The articles and commentaries in this special section do not necessarily provide answers to the questions we posed earlier, but it is our hope that they serve as a major catalyst for future research and practice with regard to the other side of acculturation. We believe the field of community
285
psychology is poised to play a leading role in this new exciting direction. We also believe that the work to be done will help to enhance the well-being of individuals, communities, and societies.
References Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. B. Organista & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 17–37). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Berry, J. W. (2006). Mutual attitudes among immigrants and ethnocultural groups in Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(6), 719–734. Migration Population Institute (2008). Migration facts, stats, and maps: Foreign-born population as a percentage of the total population, selected OECD Countries. http://www.migration information.org. Retrieved 23 May 2008. Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum for the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149–152. Roberts, S. (2008). In 2020, 1 in 7 people in U.S. may be foreignborn, The New York Times. http://nytimes/2008/02/11/us/ 11cnd-immig.html. Retrieved 11 Feb 2008.
123
