Download adaptation of visible minorities

UNIVERZITA KARLOVA
Fakulta sociálních věd
ADAPTATION OF VISIBLE MINORITIES
Course: EU Policies towards Ethnic Minorities
Term: Winter Semester 2004
Lecturer: PhDr. Laura Laubeová
Student: Ondřej Valenta
Migration to a new host country and a consequent adaptation of an immigrant are both
very complex processes, which are shaped by a lot of different factors, ranging from
individual level to that of macro-regional. From the point of view of social psychology,
adaptation process of an immigrant to a host society means a crucial life-change and a period
of stress for the individual migrant. The focus of contemporary research is therefore aimed
to reveal the complications and stress situations and their potential diminishing.
The topic of the paper attends to complications of adaptation of visible minorities, and
tries to find some solutions, based on a case study of Czech Romas. I am aware of the fact that
there is no general solution that would solve all sorts of problems and difficulties during
the process of adaptation. This paper thus tries to introduce one of the possible ways to fight
those problems. Before that, several definitions and concepts have to be discussed so that
there won’t be any misconceptions later in the paper.
Definitions: Ethnic minority, ethnicity
According to various sources (e.g. Dictionary 2000, Velký Sociologický Slovník
1996), a minority is being generally defined as less numerous group of people in a relation
to the majority population in a society in terms of some sociologically relevant characteristic.
Therefore minorities can be that of sexual, political, religious, linguistic, or ethnic.
Ethnic minority is then a group of people, less numerous than the rest of the state
population; ethnic minority finds itself in a non-dominate position, whose members have
ethnic, racial or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population;
its members must also show, if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity, directed towards
preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language (World Directory of Minorities 1991).
The Minority Right Group (MRG) extends the formulation of ethnic minority in two ways,
by including non-dominant groups who may actually be in a numerical majority in a state,
and those who are not necessarily nationals or citizens of the state in which they reside (King
1999). Especially when speaking about ethnic minority, a notion of being inferior or less good
in relation to the majority population is felt as well. Ethnic differences have no neutral
meaning in most cases; they are often connected with significant wealth and power
inequalities between different ethnic groups (Liebkind 1992).
The term “ethnic minority” is often used to include all types of ethnic groups, ranking
from big national minorities living outside the area of its country until the small ethnic
communities balancing in their characteristics between ethnic and ethnographic community.
When an ethnic minority happens to have its own state, it consequently becomes a nation
in the state (Šatava 1994).
Although the concept of ethnicity is fairly new, the existence of ethnic groups has
been significant throughout history (Castles, Miller 1993). I find reasonable to divide ethnic
minorities into “historical” and “new”. The crucial difference between these two is that
historical minority emerged to be an ethnic minority in new forming states, which were
institutionalized on nation-state principle. On the other hand, new ethnic minorities
were created only by temporal migration processes of individuals from their native to the host
country. It is important to realize that the existence of the older minorities has helped
to mould
social
structures
and
attitudes,
which
help
determine
the
conditions
for the implantation of new immigrant groups (Castles, Miller 1993).
Ethnic identification is one of the most important parts of the total personal
identification. Ethnic identity can be understood as a system of characteristics, by which one
can identify with own cultural or ethnic background within a particular ethnic minority
(Liebkind 1984). This system is dynamic; it can change in time within both historical context
of an ethnic minority and the context of an individual’s life. This psychological factor,
the ethnic consciousness or just the notion of belongingness to some ethnic group is the most
important factor that forms and preserves the existence of ethnic minorities (Liebkind 1992).
Besides
that,
structural
attributes
(social
interaction,
demographic
characteristics,
geographical clustering) are also important aspects of ethnic group identification (Roseman,
Laux, Thieme 1996, in Drbohlav 2001).
It is apparent that the ethnicity and ethnic identity are present at all levels, ranking
from personal to the inter-national level. Ethnicity and ethnic identity at all those levels are
very vulnerable to all kinds of factors and influences. This truth contributes to overall
confusion, misconceptions, controversial ideas and approaches present in these concepts.
However, this kind of discussion is not in focus of this work. For more specific information,
see e.g. Drbohlav 2001.
Even more confusion arises when terms ethnicity and race are used interchangeably.
In its original meaning, “race” is entirely a phenotypic feature, developed according
to different patterns of climate. Thus it is not a matter of any subjective self-definition
as ethnicity is, but an objective criterion (Drbohlav 2001). United Nations recommends
a global distinction into three basic races; white, yellow and black. However, this
recommendation isn’t applied everywhere in the world. The United States, for instance, uses
its own distinction into five different races; one of the aims was to put a division line between
American whites and Hispanics, which would belong to the same race group according
to the UN recommendation (Dictionary 2000). Especially in Anglo-Saxon literature, the term
“race” receives a broader meaning, which includes also some of the cultural or even economic
features; the race is then considered as a social construct. Also Velký Sociologický Slovník
(1996) admits two dimensions of race; the first one is entirely anthropological, the second one
gains a complex of language, cultural or religious features, as it is usually perceived
by common people.
Adaptation Process
The term “adaptation” exactly means a process and a result of the process of changes
in population/group’s behavior in order to survive or to function in an environment (Velký
Sociologický Slovník 1996). It’s the way of describing how individuals, households and
communities respond and cope with new experiences and settings of the host society
(Dictionary 2000).
The most known (socio-psychological) model of adaptation process presents Berry
(1992). He divides adaptation strategy into four possible ways, to which the adaptation
process of an immigrant in a host society can develop. These four possible ways are related
to answers to the two crucial questions: Is it considered to be of value to maintain
relationships with other groups? And is it considered to be of value to maintain cultural
identity and characteristics? Again, these adaptation processes can be recognized both
at the personal and ethnic group level. Following table presents a simplified summary
of Berry’s results of adaptation processes.
Table 1: Four possible outcomes of the adaptation process
Maintenance of
relationships with other
groups
YES
NO
separation/
Maintenance YES integration segregation
of cultural
identity
NO assimilation marginalization
Possible outcomes
of the adaptation
process
Source: Berry 1992:28
The first possible way results in assimilation, when the minority group is absorbed
by the dominant group, or it can also mean merging of many groups to form a new society.
The second possibility, integration, on the other hand, implies some maintenance of cultural
integrity of the group as well as the movement to become an integral part of a larger societal
framework (Berry 1992).
Integration in a broad sense means creation and maintenance of intense and diverse
patterns of interaction and control between formerly more or less separate social spaces.
It’s thus bringing together different systems of meaning and actions founded in different sets
of social relations (norms, means of communication, indicators of value, etc.) (Dictionary
2000). In more specific terms, integration of immigrants to the host society is a process,
in which immigrants are gradually incorporated into various social systems of the host society
(Janská 2002). Similar cultural origins/ties are amongst the factors that promote integration
into the host society, whereas cultural distance makes integration more difficult (ChiswickMiller 1998). Thus, it’s no wonder that, for instance, UK and Irish migrants were much more
successful in integration in New Zealand than others (Winkelmann 2000, in Drbohlav 2001).
Integration also means that immigrants maintain specific features of their culture.
Third possible result of the adaptation process is segregation and separation, which
are characterized by no substantial relations with the larger society, accompanied
by a maintenance of ethnic identity and traditions (Berry 1992). Segregation refers
to the process of social differentiations to the spatial patterns that result from such processes.
It takes place usually at the urban scale (Dictionary 2000). This spatial manifestation is either
voluntary or involuntary (Peach 1999). The voluntary clustering is called separation;
it’s created when members of a group choose to live in close proximity. In this case, one can
speak about an (exclusive) enclave. If members of the group were there because they were
prevented from living anywhere else, it would be a ghetto (Dictionary 2000, Peach 1999).
The spatial concentration of the group is therefore the result of factors external to the
decisions and wishes of the segregated group.
The fourth and last possibility of adaptation process leads to marginalization. This
term is difficult to define precisely, possibly because it’s accompanied by a good deal
of collective and individual confusion and stress. The term is characterized by striking out
against larger society and by feelings of alienation, loss of identity, and what has been termed
acculturative stress (Berry and Annis 1974, in Berry 1992). Marginalization occurs when
a group/individual loses cultural and psychological contact with both its traditional culture
and the larger society, either by exclusion or withdrawal (Berry 1992).
There is one significant factor, which influences the rate of stress during the adaptation
process of an individual migrant into the host society. It is the migrant’s identification with
own ethnic and cultural identity. Liebkind (Liebkind 1992) distinguishes three main levels
of individual or group ethnic consciousness and consequences of that. First level is
the primary identification. It means that an individual of a group is aware of its ethnic/cultural
origin; however, it means no more than that. Second level is characterized by a stronger
affiliation with the ethnic group identity, including common history and group interests,
generally in the name of some own ideology. Third level is created by the transformation
of the second level into the political and institutional dimension; ethnic minority invents
strategies and ways to reach own powers and ideological goals through establishment
of clubs, interest groups or political parties.
Today it becomes clear that different ethnic immigrant groups adapts differently
in the same host population. Even the same ethnic group behaves different way in different
countries. In some countries, they assimilate, in others they separate and create enclaves.
This phenomenon is formed by several factors. Among the exogenous factors one could find
specific immigration policy of the host country or character of the host population, rate
of racism and xenophobia toward specific ethnic minority of immigrants as such. Endogenous
factors arise from the character of the ethnic minority, being it especially the rate
of ethnic affiliation among the ethnic minority members, or goals and expectations
of the ethnic minority members. All the factors, which influence the ethnic minority and its
members during the process of adaptation, are presented in Diagram 1 in Attachment.
From the viewpoint of social psychology, the personality of an immigrant during
the process of adaptation evolves generally the same way as a human being evolves during
his/her life history. The crucial difference is that in the case of the immigrant, exogenous
forces influencing the personality of the immigrant are way stronger and more intense,
since they work in a limited time-period. Diagram 2 in Attachment presents this phenomenon
in a clearer way.
When an immigrant enters the host society, it is indubitable that the immigrant identity
needs to be re-identified in this alien environment. This process of identification runs in two
dimensions. The first one is subjective, which immigrant creates by himself and which is then
presented to the environment. This subjective identification is composed both from social
identification, in which the immigrant sees himself as part of some social group (e.g. ethnic
group) and personal identification, created on the basis of differences of personal
characteristics from the others in the same social group. Second dimension is objective; this is
how the environment identifies the immigrant. This external identification is also formed
by social and personal element. Final identification of the immigrant is then created
on the basis of identity negotiations between these two dimensions of the identification
process. These negotiations (more in Diagram 3) are exercised in forms of non-verbal
communication, psychology and sub-consciousness (Liebkind 1984).
Visible Minorities and the Adaptation Process
As stated above, adaptation process is considered to be stressful for an immigrant,
since he has to undergo new process of self-identification in a new environment. More
complications arise when the objective dimension of identification, which is ascribed
to the immigrant by the others is quite opposing to the subjective identification, especially
in the element of social identification. This negative external group identification can be due
to the general attitudes towards immigrants and ethnic minorities, and also to the amount
of experiences and its character with the immigrants and ethnic minorities in the host
population.
There is a general rule that culturally closer immigrant groups/ethnic minorities often
experience friendly attitudes with the majority population, whereas culturally distant
immigrant groups/ethnic minorities experience rather negative attitudes and rejection (Blom
1999, Winkelmann 2000, in Drbohlav 2001). Since culturally closer ethnic minorities share
a number of common cultural attributes with the majority population, it is easier for them
to integrate and to maintain their own cultural norms and practices, and their adaptation
process doesn’t mean any substantive stress. On the other hand, culturally distant ethnic
minorities experience difficulties in adaptation process due to the big cultural distinction; and
more, or maybe also because of that, the majority population maintains negative relationships
and attitudes with them as part of a fear from everything that might endanger e.g. the national
unity.
Visible minorities form a special case. Liebkind (1984) argues that the visibility
of minority characteristics (e.g. skin color, language) contributes to overall negative attitudes
from the majority population towards the visible ethnic minority, and consequently it
contributes to a low self-esteem of the ethnic group. As a result, the visible ethnic minority
can concentrate within particular area (of living, but also within an area of labor market),
often with lower physical and living quality, as means of defending itself against the negative
attitudes. This of course only enhances negative attitudes and prejudices coming from the
majority population towards the ethnic group, as the majority population lacks of contacts
with the ethnic group. A vicious circle, which is hard to be broken, is then created. These
external negative attitudes can consequently become part of subjective (internal) group
identity (Liebkind 1984) and can result in guilt (blaming the self) or anger and violence
(Hancock 2000).
Even completely integrated or assimilated members a visible ethnic group can face
negative attitudes for being still visibly different from the majority population (Zhou 1999).
These attitudes can survive or can still be implicitly present for a long period of time, as it is
the case of e.g. African Americans in the United States.
Negative attitudes are, however, only the beginning. At the end, they can evolve
into an institutional discrimination in various spheres of life and explicit racism towards
the visible ethnic group, no matter whether its members are integrated or separated in respect
to the majority population, and no matter how long the ethnic group shares common place
with the majority population.
The focus of this paper is to show one of the possible ways to fight negative attitudes
and discrimination of visible minority groups. In this paper, I present a case study of a Roma
community in Brno. Romas have been a minority, who has faced discrimination and negative
prejudices for centuries throughout the whole Europe. However, in some cities in the Czech
Republic, e.g. Český Krumlov, Roma community managed to coexist with the majority
population without any major difficulties. Český Krumlov, nevertheless, represents atypical
example influenced by specific historical event, which was the displacement of ethnic
Germans from the area after the World War II. Brno, on the other hand, represents a case,
where problems in coexistence of majority population and Roma were present; and few
attempts to improve this situation emerged in recent years.
These projects (Bratislavská 41, Cejl 49) that took place in Brno, were focused mainly
on improving the living conditions in houses, where Romas constituted a majority of total
number of inhabitants. What I see as a huge advantage of these project is that these projects
were meant to work in a long term and that the project were complex; in other words, besides
improving living conditions they also included creating new job opportunities, interest clubs
and re-qualification courses that would serve the members of the Roma community.
Together with the participation of Romas together with members of the majority
population of the same house on these projects, Roma community has the unique chance to
improve its perceived position in the Czech society, although this improvement is, due to the
number and extent of the projects, spatially small and scattered.
Projects from Brno showed that one of the ways to fight negative attitudes and
discrimination of certain ethnic minorities is the cooperation with the majority population
on certain issues and projects. More contacts between both groups will break down mutual
prejudices and psychological barriers. Although improvement of the relationships between
both groups is a run on a long distance, these minor projects represent useful civic activities.
However, I am afraid that without any governmental “shield” or conception of e.g. education
of Romas, these projects will remain separate islands without any future use for solving
present situation of Roma population in the Czech Republic.
References:
Berry, J.W. (1992): Acculturation and Adaptation in a New Society. International Migration,
Vol. 30, Special Issue: Migration and Health in the 1990s. pp. 69-85.
Blom, S. (1999): Residential Concentration Among Immigrants in Oslo. International
Migration, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 617-641.
Castles, S., Miller, M.J. (1993): The Age of Migration. The Guilford Press. New York 1993.
387 pg.
Chiswick, B.R., Miller, P.W. (1998): Language Skill Definition: A Study of Legalized Aliens.
International Migration Review, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 877-900.
The Dictionary of Human Geography. Johnston, R. J., D. Gregory, G. Pratt, M. Watts (eds.),
Oxford (UK), Malden (Mass. US), Blackwell Publishers Ltd., fourth edition 2000.
Drbohlav, D. (2001): Ethnicity, Family and International Migration. Paper originally
presented at the (ESF) Exploratory Workshop on Migration and Family Across the
Lifecourse, 7-9 September 2001, School of Geography, University of Leeds, UK, manuscript.
Hancock, Ian (2000) “The Consequences of Anti-Gypsy Racism in Europe” in Other Voices.
The
(e)Journal
of
Cultural
Criticism,
v.
2,
n.1
(February
2000),
http://www.othervoices.org/2.1/hancock/roma.html
Janská, E. (2002): Adaptace cizinců v České republice. Dizertační práce. Praha,
Přírodovědecká fakulta Univerzity Karlovy.
King, R. (1999): World Directory of Minorities. Book Review. International Journal of
Population Geography, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 154-155.
Liebkind, K. (1984): Minority Identity and Identification Processes: a Social Psychological
Study. Maintenance and Reconstruction of Ethnolinguistic Identity in Multiple Group
Allegiance. Helsinki. The Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters. Commentationes
Scientiarum Socialium, Vol. 22.
Liebkind, K. (1992): Ethnic Identity: Challenging the Boundaries of Social Psychology. In:
G.M. Breakwell (ed.): The Social Psychology of Identity and the Self Concept, London,
Academic Press (Surrey University Press), London 1992, pp. 147-185.
Peach, C. (1999): London and New York: Contrasts in British and American Models of
Segregation with a Comment by Nathan Glazer. International Journal of Population
Geography, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp. 319-347.
Šatava, L. (1994): Národnostní menšiny v Evropě. Ivo Železný, Praha 1994. 385 pg.
Velký sociologický slovník. Maříková, H., Petrusek, M., Vodáková, A. (eds.) Univerzita
Karlova Praha. Karolinum Praha 1996. 1627 pg.
Víšek, P., Bandyová, M. (eds.): Romové: bydlení, soužití. Socioklub, Praha 2000. 126 pg.
World Directory of Minorities. Minority Rights Group (ed.). London 1990, Vol. XIV.
Zhou, M. (1997): Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies and Recent Research on the
Second Generation. International Migration Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp 975-1008.