Chapter 17
Immigration and
Adaptation:
|
Warm up Exercise:
Exploring Social Identities Before reading this chapter write your responses to the following
questions on a separate sheet of paper. Once you have read the chapter
respond to the questions again and
compare your responses. 1. What is your ethnic, racial or cultural group membership? 2. What does it mean for you to be a member of your group? 3. What are the symbols or markers that show you are a member and that
others are not? 4. How difficult was this activity for you? |
Confronting the
Challenges of Cultural Diversity
Christopher
C. Sonn and Adrian T. Fisher
Immigration and
inter-cultural contact have been features of almost all societies throughout
history. We can trace patterns of the movement of humans across continents and
between islands through information held in archeological artifacts, written
histories, and in the pictures and stories that peoples hand down from one
generation to the next. Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan give us images of
the invaders killing or enslaving all before them. In much more recent times,
we have seen, and still experience, the impact of colonisation by British and
European countries all around the world. The invasions of World War II saw the
ultimate clash of cultures, and the deep social and psychological scars that
still remain for many people.
Today, immigration is a feature of
most, if not all, societies. People choose to move to new countries for the
sake of themselves and their families, and the new countries welcome them by
valuing the skills and knowledge that they bring. However, there are
circumstances in which it is disruptive, or worse, as immigration may not be by
choice, and the newcomers may be far from welcomed.
International immigration is now at its historical height. This
trend is not likely to change (Martin, 2001), and many countries are struggling to come to terms with the
massive numbers of people arriving at their borders. Most of the
immigrants are people who are there by choice, or because of the pushes of
technological change and other impacts of globalisation. However, there are
also many people who have been displaced because of war and prolonged social
unrest, political upheaval, drought and other natural disasters in their home
countries. These broader level phenomena are all contributing in varying
degrees to (a) increasing immigration trends, (b) the cultural diversification
and transformation of host communities, and (c) the displacement of many people
(Fenton, 1999; Joppke, 1999).
As community psychologists, we are
faced with the challenges of
working with those who are newcomers to our lands, as well as with those
who have been there before. Many of the newcomers have faced the traumas of war
and torture. They have been uprooted and their families, natural support
systems, ways of life, food, and religion have been thrown into chaos as well.
We are often also faced by the existing residents of the host country who may
perceive that their way of life and the things that they value are threatened
by those who are coming in. A
second challenge for us is to understand the bases on which we work with these
groups. That is, we must have a strong understanding of the culture into which
we have been socialised in order to help our interpretations of the world and
the ways things should work in it. We must also have a deep understanding of
the assumptions of the psychology into which we have been socialised, its
assumptions about people and how they operate. This is crucial in our ability
to interact with people from cultures that are different from our own.
In this chapter, we explore some
issues as they relate to our work with groups who immigrate, who are refugees,
or who suffer the impacts of colonization. We consider deeper issues and
challenges that may develop following relocation and intercultural contact. We
suggest that current conceptualizations of immigrant responses to intercultural
contact are limited and that framing the issues in an ecological model will
allow us to fully consider the issues of power and oppression in the settlement
process. While most of this work focuses on the newcomers, we also examine the
impacts on the residents themselves.
To help us in tis endeavour, we draw upon Julian
Rappaport’s principles underpinning community psychology (Rappaport, 1977). He
called upon us to consider three key
elements when we work with and for groups in our communities. These principles
are the cultural relativism needed to understand the bases of people’s
behaviours and belief systems; the diversity through which we
understand and value differences between groups, as well as the inherent
strengths and healing systems of those groups; and the social ecology of
person-environment fit that guides us in developing and delivering
services that aid in people’s integration.
BASIC
DEFINITIONS
In the
previous section we have used some concepts that require proper definition.
These definitions will help us understand the different expectations that
people hold, and the ways in which the movement of people and contact between
groups operate.
Those who
move from one place to another have been distinguished in two broad categories,
voluntary and involuntary (Martin, 2001; Ogbu,1994; Segall,
Dasen, Berry, & Poortinga, 1999). In addition to these two categories,
groups can also be distinguished in terms of the permanence of
the move.
Immigrants are
people who have made a relatively free choice to relocate from one country,
region, or area, to another. This is seen as a permanent decision to make one’s
home in a new place. In most cases there is a combination of push and pull
factors, in the home and receiving countries, that trigger relocation. For
those who move voluntarily (e.g., skilled immigrants, sojourners) there is
often an economic incentive.
For those
who are forced to move, that is, refugees, survival is often the
primary motivation. Recent
waves of people who have fled, often under perilous conditions, from
Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, and China, fall under the broad category of refugees.
They want to escape war, social disasters, or persecution. They want to find
new lives around the world. Some refugees have stated their intention to return
to their homeland when circumstances improve. For others, there is the
realization that they may never be able to go back.
A sub-set
of immigrants are those who are referred to as sojourners -- people such as international students,
diplomats, military personnel, and business people with international postings
(and the families who travel with them). They move to another country to
achieve certain objectives, within a specific time frame, and intend to return
home. Although they go for a limited period of time, sojourners still
face many of the adjustment issues of immigrants in the host country, as well
as re-adjustment issues when they return home.
Whatever
the motivation for relocation, those who move are always faced with settlement
challenges. Intergroup contact involves
interactions between groups in specific sociocultural and political contexts,
and it has implications for group boundaries and identities. The relationships
between groups are often characterised by unequal power relations -- that is,
groups have differential access to social, cultural and material resources.
Immigrants and refugees are often in the less powerful positions. This power
disparity can involve oppression.
The
interactions and influence between groups is bidirectional, but because of the
research focus on subordinate group responses, there is the impression that the
process is unidirectional. However, there is sufficient evidence to suggest
that greater attention is required to understand responses of the host (e. g.,
Esses, Dovidio, Jackson, Armstrong, & Tamara, 2001), who is often the
dominant community. For these groups, the responses are often influenced by
perceived threats to ways of living, values, and forms of expression (Fisher
& Sonn, 2002).
For those
who are coming to a new country the transition often entails the severing of
community ties, the loss of social networks, resources and familiar bonds. And,
of course, the loss of taken-for-granted systems of meaning. The experience is
often traumatic. For some, the transition can be positive, as it entails hope
for a better future for themselves and their children.
Some
communities are able to integrate social and cultural systems from their home
country into the new context (Sonn & Fisher, 1998). These systems provide
members with social and psychological resources and opportunities for social
participation that are central to successful adaptation.
Defining
Culture
Broadly speaking, culture includes
common values, beliefs, and norms within groups who share an ethnic heritage,
sexual orientation, or socio-economic class. Culture has been used to refer to
those who share a corporate identity because of membership in an organization.
Kagitcibasi (1996) views culture as a context for meaning. Essentially people
have argued that culture is knowable and can be described in objective terms
and viewed as a creative and interactive process involving relationship between
people and their social environment.
Culture, according to Lonner and Malpass (1994), is knowing the
rules by which we live in a society. Culture is learnt and transmitted from one
generation to another. Culturally-based values, norms, and behaviour are
transmitted from one generation to the next through the processes of socialisation
and enculturation (Hughes, Seidman, & Williams, 1993). Socialisation is the formal process of learning
the rules and behaviours of our culture through education and child-rearing
practices. Enculturation, in turn, is the informal learning
that occurs in human life in our natural settings. The process is unintentional
and often reflects the internalisation of social regularities and norms
required to be a member of a society.
There have been numerous efforts to
describe and measure culture and cultural values. However, there is also debate
about the all inclusive use of the concept of culture, the methodological
problems associated with cross-cultural comparison, and the epistemological
assumptions underpinning conceptualizations of culture (Hermans & Kempen,
1998).
One approach that has been used is
the idea of not simply monolithic cultures encompassing all members of a group,
but cultural patterns or syndromes (Triandis, 1996a). According to Triandis:
a cultural
syndrome is a pattern of shared attitudes, beliefs, categorization,
self-definitions, norms, role definitions, and values that is organised around
a theme that can be identified among those who speak a particular language,
during a specific historic period, and in a definable geographic period (1996a,
p. 408).
He acknowledges that
it is extremely difficult to operationalise and measure culture, but argued
that we can describe the various forms of cultural and social organisation and
gain insight into cultural differences.
Hofstede (1980) examined patterns of cultural
differences among employees of organisations in more than 40 countries. He
identified four dimensions along which these differences can be understood:
power distance, individualism, masculinity, and uncertainty avoidance.
Following Hofstede, Triandis wrote
extensively about individualism and collectivism. According to Triandis (1996a,
b), cultures differ on their individualistic or collectivistic orientations,
reflected in cultural patterns conceptualising the self, interpersonal
relations, and social behaviour. For example, people in individualistic
cultures view themselves as independent from others, and give priority to
personal needs, rights, and goals. Those who are collectivistic are motivated,
mostly, by group norms, duties, and prioritise collective goals and needs over
personal goals.
The central points are that cultures are diverse, complex,
and changing. Culture is central to human functioning, guides our behaviour,
and provides scripts for living. The important lesson for us, as
community psychologists, can again be drawn from Julian Rappaport (1977). A key
element to our work is to be explicit about our values and their impact on our
interpretation of events and ways of working. As our values are typically based
in our cultures, we must have a strong understanding of the spirit in which we
have been raised. In addition, we must have a critical understanding of the
professional culture into which we have been socialised.
CROSS-CULTURAL
TRANSITION: CHALLENGES OF CHANGE
Acculturation
A strong research
focus in cross-cultural and cultural psychology has been on understanding acculturation.
Acculturation involves challenges and subsequent changes to one’s culture.
Acculturation reflects the adaptations that different cultural groups must make
due to continuous, first-hand contact with others (Redfield, Linton, &
Herskovits, 1936). Often, acculturation is considered from the perspective of
those with least power in the situation, for example, immigrants or refugees.
While newcomers have to make the largest adaptations in order to live in a new
community, the host group also has to make adaptations. However, most of the
research has been concerned with the changes that those in less powerful
positions have to make. For many Indigenous groups, it is the power of the
newcomers that transformed their lives -- usually not for the best.
A number of different theoretical
models have been developed to capture the experiences, processes and outcomes
associated within acculturation and intercultural contact. These include mainly
acculturation and social identity theory (Berry, 1984, 1986, 1997, 1998;
Birman, 1994; Lafromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993; Sam, 2000; Smith,1991;
Tajfel,1981). Some of these models are presented in Table 1. Berry’s (1997)
model of acculturation and immigrant adaptation contains four common responses
to intercultural contact: integration, assimilation, separation, and
marginalisation. These responses are characterised by shifts in attitudes and
behaviour toward one’s own and other communities. For example, group members
may move away from their community of origin toward the host community (assimilation), or they may
move towards their own community and away from the host group (separation).
These responses are characterized by
different mental health and social outcomes, with integration (or biculturalism)
being the most favorable and marginalization the least. There is general
agreement among these conceptual models that those who are better rooted in
their home culture report better social and psychological well-being
(Lafromboise, et al., 1993; Phinney, Horenczyk, Liebkind, & Vedder, 2001).
One would need to ask under what circumstances individuals and groups respond
by opting for assimilation or marginalization?
INSERT
TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
Although these models have been
useful in clarifying the role of psychosocial factors in intercultural contact,
there are issues that hinder a fuller understanding of the complex ways in
which groups negotiate the challenges associated with intergroup contact. There
is a tendency to
oversimplify and present in a deterministic manner individual and
community-responses. In addition, there is a
failure to examine group-specific settings, and social, cultural and
material resources available in negotiating intergroup relations. Ethnic
and racial groups have often been presented as passive victims of broader
social forces, as lacking in competence (Sonn & Fisher, 1998; Watts, 1994a,
b) -- a simple case of blaming the victims for their circumstances.
A more sophisticated,
pseudo-acceptable, way of blaming the victims was identified by Rappaport,
Davidson, Wilson, and Mitchell (1975). In this, the environment or culture in
which people live are blamed for their circumstances -- it is not them, just
their culture that makes them that way. Such a response denies the political and structural roots
of these environments, roots that are usually outside the control of the people
involved. While cultural relativity (Rappaport,1977) is important in
understanding why people behave the way they do, it is neither an excuse for
behaviours that we cannot tolerate, nor should it be an excuse for denying
services and help. Similarly, just blaming the newcomers does not pay adequate
attention to the different sociopolitical forces that influence the
acculturation and settlement experiences -- it invokes an implicit assumption
that the process is universal and the same for all groups and individuals.
Bhatia and Ram (2000) suggested that for some
groups settling in the US, especially those who are ‘visibly’ different,
experiences of racism have significant implications for the
acculturation and settlement experience. In fact, Dion (2001) showed that
visible minorities experienced rejection in housing and in other domains. Such
experiences are likely to lead to responses that may not always be the most
adaptive in adjusting to a new country.
Indeed,
the responses presented in Table 1 are those of members of the non-dominant
group. These responses are focussed on the behaviours and thoughts of
individuals coming into with members of the dominant group. However, these
responses also reflect the official policies imposed by governments in their
efforts to re-settle immigrants. As highlighted in Box 1, the Australian
government has had a series of policies and propaganda campaigns to manage and often
discourage immigration and cultural pluralism. For many years, assimilation was
the official policy. “New Australians” were expected to fit in with the
dominant British culture. This was assisted by the White Australia Policy which acted to exclude most
potential immigrants who would be obviously different in race, religion and
culture. The current model of multiculturalism has reflected a policy aimed at
integration: the original culture is nurtured within the broader scope of the
Australian community. In this way, the benefits of rootedness in home culture
are maximised, while the dominant culture is enriched (Lafromboise et al.,
1993; Phinney, et al., 2001).
INSERT BOX
1 ABOUT HERE
Given these issues, we must consider
immigrant and refugee responses in a holistic and reflexive manner. We must
acknowledge the interrelatedness of people and systems and pay greater
attention to the history of intergroup relations, to power issues, and to
diversity. These factors have direct implications for our community
interventions. The notion of social ecology provides a conceptual tool for
understanding the multiple ways in which groups adapt and interact. The
ecological metaphor encourages us to recognise the embeddedness of people in
contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Rappaport, 1977). This helps us to shift our
focus from individualistic explanations that are prone to victim-blaming toward
more holistic system-oriented
models of explanation.
Oppression, Culture, and Class
Respect for diversity is a core
principle of community psychology and is central to social ecology. Trickett
(1996) strongly argued that we must consider diversity of contexts, as well as
contexts of diversity, in community research and action. Ignoring within-group diversity will result in the
homogenization of ethnic communities and will undermine within group diversity.
In our research with Chilean
immigrants in Australia it was evident that they shared a common history and
cultural values (Sonn, Bustello, & Fisher, 1998). Participants would often
speak about their Catholic religion, familismo, and respect as
cultural values central to their group. These values are important in affirming
individual and group identities. However, within the community there were
strong differences in terms of political allegiances, immigration history, and
socioeconomic background. These factors had a big impact on the nature of
adaptation. For example, one a participant observed:
If you think back to
the 70's during the social depression [in Chile], people who were very much
right wing left the country on their own. They were professional people and
educated people...they did what they had to do and so when other people came
with government assistance they were very reluctant to mix with them.
Although people shared cultural symbols and practices
that were important to community identity, social and political factors from
the home country set them apart. In the new country, participation in immigrant
organizations reflect social, educational, and economic disparities that were
evident in the home country.
It is clear that the community has, to some
extent, reproduced an internal class structure and political allegiances based
on the home culture. In the former country, economic opportunity, education and
political allegiance afforded people differential levels of privilege and
power. Power and privilege are evident in how group members speak about educacion.
This notion means more than formal education; it reflects “moral development
and familial responsibility” (Goldenberg & Gallimore, 1995, p.187).
Perceived lack of educacion was used to exclude and devalue others.
Oppression, Race, and
Settlement
According to Bhatia and Ram (2001), current
theorising about acculturation and settlement is based on the assumption that
all groups experience acculturation in the same way. They argued that some
groups, such as East Indians who settled in the USA, have histories of
colonisation and continue to experience racial prejudice. History forms part of
the collective memory of groups as they negotiate their individual and
community identities, often in the context of ongoing institutionalised racism.
Hence, they have strong implications for the settlement process. Not paying
attention to these experiences would undermine our ability to work with groups
for whom there are such salient factors.
Fenton
(1999) drew on examples from Britain, Hawai’i and Malaysia to show how the
experiences of ethnic groups are constructed and negotiated in political and
economic contexts. He argued that in many countries the division of labour is
organised along ‘ethnic’ or ‘racial’ lines. In those contexts, ethnic groups
come to occupy a particular niche within the division of labour. So much so
that certain ethnic groups become synonymous with class position. Fenton cites
a number of examples, including the Chinese merchant in Jamaica and the Indian
cane grower in Fiji.
The creation of social settings is a
central part of the adaptation process for immigrant communities. Yet, not all
participate, or desire to participate, in social settings within their ethnic
and immigrant groups; often they seek opportunities for participation in the
broader community. Participation in the broader community may well represent
opportunities for social mobility -- something they were denied in the home
country because of their group membership. On the surface, the movement away
from one’s community may reflect assimilation or rejection of a minority
status. The rejection of the minority status can be regarded as a positive
achievement. However, it often comes at a cost, including the loss of contact
with the home community, feelings of selling out, and ambivalence about
acceptance by the dominant group.
Close scrutiny of individual and
group responses reveals a complex picture of how oppression is experienced and
how it impacts adaptation. Birman
(1994), for example, argued that Russian refugees to the US use different
adaptation strategies in different social contexts. She suggested that in some
circumstances individuals and groups may choose to assimilate to ensure group
survival. Thus, assimilation may be the visible response in one setting, while
integration is the response in another.
Lewis (2001) investigated the role
of race, gender and ethnicity in the experiences of first generation ‘coloured’
South African women in Australia. Analyses of qualitative data show that many
participants have a strong preference to identify themselves as Australian and
intend to socialise their children as Australians. Many want little contact
with their community of origin. The data show that participants often speak in
negative ways about their community of origin, in particular about the
experiences of oppression and exclusion in South Africa during the Apartheid
period. The rejection of the home community and imposed labels, as well as the
decision to assimilate may be understood in terms of responses to oppression
and colonization. In this case, people feel welcomed in the new community, but
the motivation for assimilation and rejection of the home community is fuelled
in part by the internalization of racialised myths about the home community
(Sonn & Fisher, in press).
Among
these immigrants, there is a reliance on dominant narratives about identity and
community that were internalised during the Apartheid period in South Africa
(Sonn & Fisher, in press). The negative stories, experiences, and perceptions of life in the home
country are often rooted in Apartheid ideologies and racist myths. In that country,
ethnic groups were hierarchically arranged according to racial classification
and received differential levels of access to material, social, and educational
resources. The desire to assimilate into the broader Australian community is
not problematic, but reflects the internalisation of oppression and the
subsequent rejection of the home community. In this situation, there is more to
the settlement process than the negotiation of the new culture; there are
experiences of racialised oppression and experiences of rejection that
complicates settlement and community-making.
For this group, community building
initiatives and social identity interventions have to include a focus on
challenging negative stereotypes of race and class position. As a part of this
process there can be an emphasis on developing an awareness of the social and
political processes that impact community and individual development. In this respect, the work of Rod
Watts and his colleagues (Watts1994, a, b; Watts, Griffiths, & Abdul-Adil,
1999) on sociopolitical development may be very helpful in informing
interventions aimed at decolonisation and consciousness-raising about
internalised oppression (see Table 2). Watts’ focus is on developing political
understandings so that people can move from the uncritical acceptance of a
status of inferiority to challenging the status quo.
INSERT
TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE
The model has relevance for many
different communities that are oppressed because it is concerned with
deconstructing the social, cultural, political and historical factors that
inform the structure of race relationships. It is about raising awareness
regarding the sociopolitical basis of oppression and constructing alternatives
that can form the basis for positive development and community
participation.
RESPONSES
OF THE RECEIVING COMMUNITY
So far we have suggested that
immigrant adaptation can be considered within an ecological model that
recognizes the interrelatedness of people and systems. We have also suggested
that we must pay specific attention to diversity that is reflected in the
histories, stories, and lived experiences of groups as well as the nature of
power in communities. In addition to the experiences of immigrant groups, it is
equally important to pay greater attention to the responses of the receiving
community. Arguably, the receiving community also creates a set of discourses
and understandings about those who come to settle. These discourses inform
individual and community responses to immigrants.
Researchers have theorised about the
responses of the receiving community (e.g., Hage, 1999). These responses often
vary from acceptance through to outright rejection of newcomers. In Australia at the
moment, there is considerable diversity in community responses to the arrival
of refugees. Comments made in the media cover the whole range, from pleas for
compassion to calls to turn the boats around. These views are expressed within
a context in which politicians speak out against immigrants, as they “take jobs
from hardworking mainstream Australians.”
There is a growing body of work in Europe and North
America exploring experiences of racism and discrimination among ethnic and
religious minorities, including xenophobia and anti-semitism (e.g., Banton,
1999; Esses et al. 2001, Joppke,1999. Ter Wal, Verdun, & Westerbeek, 1995).
According to this literature, there is a growing exclusionary response toward
immigrants that is reflected in the rise of conservative political discourses.
These political discourses advocate anti-immigration policies and exclusion.
Banton (1999) cites literature that shows different forms of racial
vilification against black people in Italy, attacks on Turkish and Yugoslav
workers in Germany, and attacks on immigrants and ethnic minorities in France, Sweden
and Denmark.
It is easy to say that those in
dominant positions are prejudiced or racist. However, this is too simplistic an
explanation. There are deeper questions that must be asked, including what
social, cultural, historical, and political realities inform these social and
psychological responses.
Realistic group conflict theory
(Sherif, 1966) forms the basis of much of the research exploring this issue.
Some have expanded this model in the instrumental model of group conflict,
which posits that perceived competition over scarce resources impacts
intergroup relations. That is, the perception that competitive out-groups
threaten resources may result in hostility towards those groups. This hostility
involves rejection and is reflected in ethnic prejudice and discrimination.
Esses et al. (2001) argued that this perceived competition is a strong factor
influencing attitudes toward multiculturalism. They also found a strong relationship between negative
attitudes toward immigrants and people who believe in a hierarchical
structuring of the world (Sidanius, 1993). This work suggests that
social psychological phenomena play out in broader socio-cultural and political
contexts.
More recently, there has also been considerable attention
paid to examining the role of Whiteness, as a form of privilege and dominance,
in structuring responses to immigrants and refugees in North America
(see Fine, Weis, Powell, & Mun Wong, 1997; Frankenberg, 1993). Whiteness is
seen as useful because it allows us to examine fairly deep and complex ways in
which colonisation and
racism continue to impact immigrant and refugee groups. Whiteness shifts
the focus from those in positions of relative powerlessness to an analysis of
the social and cultural systems that maintain oppression in specific contexts.
A focus of this work is on identifying forms of cultural racism (Jones, 1997).
Cultural racism is often very hidden
and is reflected in collective schemas, stereotypes, and ideologies; it is
about examining the ways in which the images and impressions of non-dominant
groups are portrayed in the mass media, as well as through scientific research
and inquiry. In a sense, cultural racism is about examining and challenging dominant
discourses about non-dominant groups. Mass media is an extremely powerful force
through which public opinions and attitudes are conditioned, and minority
groups positioned and represented in stereotypical ways, if they are
represented at all.
An
examination of media coverage of government and public responses to the refugee
influx allows us to explore the ways in which ‘othering’ works to distance,
marginalise and dehumanise those who are different. These people are often
referred to as asylum seekers, illegals, and queue jumpers. They are given
plenty of labels that ‘other’ them. Currently in Australia, many of the
refugees are in detention centres, waiting for visa applications to be
processed -- some have been waiting periods upwards of two years.
Community responses to the issue
raise a number of questions, including: (1) how do people wittingly and
sometimes unwittingly exclude others and deny them basic human rights; (2) what
are the social, cultural, and political processes that characterize social
exclusion and perpetuates oppression; (3) what are the social and psychological
benefits for those in dominant positions? These are questions that require
urgent attention. They are not only about psychological issues and
implications. There are broader concerns about the responsibility of nations
such as Australia, the United States, New Zealand, and countries in Europe and
Asia towards groups that have been oppressed.
Community psychologists have an
opportunity to make a contribution to promote a better understanding of the
refugee experience. One of the ways to achieve this is to engage in
community-based education about the powerlessness of refugee groups, and about
the marginalizing impacts of labelling.
The myths and misinformation must be challenged because they are embedded in
social systems and everyday discourses that are often invisible to those in
dominant positions. At the most recent 8th TransTasman Community
Psychology conference in Perth in 2002, all delegates at the conference endorsed
and released a press statement condemning the involuntary detention of
refugees. In this way groups can mobilize and raise community awareness and
lobby politicians and policy makers about issues of oppression and the
violation of human rights.
Creating
Settings and Support Systems
Social support systems can play a
significant role in facilitating individual and community responses to change
(Heller & Swindle, 1983; Mitchell & Trickett, 1984). These systems
operate in different ways to provide material, informational, instrumental, and
emotional support. Some researchers (e.g., Cox, 1989) have documented the
individual and communal benefits of social settings within ethnic groups. These
settings operate as protective mechanisms which buffer stressors associated
with racism and other sources of adversity; they provide the contexts in which
identities can be affirmed and skills can be developed.
Immigrant groups can transfer the
positive experiences of community they had in their home countries to the new
country through social networks and social support systems (Sonn & Fisher,
1996, 1998) . These systems are activity settings (O’Donnell, Tharp, &
Wilson, 1993) and can include social and sporting clubs, church groups, and
cultural associations. In the new country these social networks provide
opportunities for participation and identity making, furnishing people with
social and emotional support. Members have the opportunity to renegotiate
cultural identities and find ways to support other community members in these
settings. The sense of community nourished in these settings enhances personal,
relational, and collective well-being (Prilleltensky, & Nelson, 2001; Sonn
& Fisher, 1996, Sonn, 2002).
It is important to note that
although there are many positives associated with internal support systems, there can be also a
negative side to these because they can become very insular. A focus on
maintaining community boundaries may inadvertently result in restricted opportunities
for group members to participate in the broader community. However, the key
concern is with providing structures and settings in communities that will
provide members with opportunities for meaningful social roles, identities, and
networks. These systems link people to the broader society and are responsive
to broader social pressures. In essence, they are core mediating structures
that are central to the promotion of relational wellness and the enhancement of
group and community-capacity (Chapter 2 this volume; Sonn & Fisher, 1998).
ROLES AND CHALLENGES FOR COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGIST
Robertson,
Thomas, Dehar, and Blaxall (1989) identified a number of possible roles for
community psychologists: consultant, evaluator, researcher, planner, networker,
trainer, negotiator, and advocate. Although these roles seem relatively
straightforward, they are actually complex and challenging because they involve
the negotiation of values, roles and identities. These negotiations are an
essential part of the process of working with different communities. If we fail
to negotiate values, roles, and identities in different contexts with different
groups, we may run a greater risk of working in disempowering ways.
For
example, based on my (Chris) work with an Aboriginal group in Australia I have
been able to identify some intense challenges associated with being an outsider
to that community. I am an outsider because of my ethnicity and my position
within the University as an educator. I am also an insider because of my own
lived experiences of racism. In exploring issues with members of that community
it became clear to me that I could unwittingly participate in oppressive
practices because of a failure to critically examine my own privilege and
power. For example, as part of a research project on Aboriginal students’
experiences in mainstream education, I learned that for research processes and
outcomes to be empowering we may need to examine deeper issues including the
assumptions we hold about knowledge and the processes that we use to legitimize
some forms of knowledge over others. This was quite disconcerting because it
challenged the foundations of my previous learning in psychology. It meant that
I had to rethink the way in which we work with communities who are oppressed
and critically reflect on my own role in oppression. This critical reflection
is not easy because it involves consciousness raising about our own
subjectivity and limits.
Some
years ago I (Adrian), and my colleague Wally Karnilowicz (Fisher, Karnilowicz,
& Ngo, 1994), received funding to examine the delivery of disability
services in the Vietnamese community. While we knew a lot about disabilities
and service delivery, we knew little about Vietnamese culture, and certainly
did not speak the language. Drawing upon community psychology principles, we
engaged with leaders of the Vietnamese community in an attempt to understand
their perspectives of disabilities, the appropriate ways of delivering
services, and how to proceed with the research. We were welcomed by the
community leaders because we were attempting to work with them, and because we
asked about their ideas rather than imposing our own. From this, they acted as
sponsors for the research, assisting with many access issues.
What
we learned from the initial contacts was that our understanding of the causes
of disabilities and those of the Vietnamese people were poles apart – from our
science-based knowledge to their belief in Karma. Services to be delivered were
not to focus exclusively on the individual, but had to reflect the family-oriented
nature of their culture, as well as the negative stigma that disabilities
carried for the family.
A key
part of undertaking the research was honouring the sponsorship of the community
and the need to work within totally different cultural constraints. One
important way in which this was played out was in the recruitment of a research
assistant, with the selection panel including a senior member of the Vietnamese
Community Association. He conducted about half of the interview in Vietnamese.
One part of this was to assess the language competence of the applicants.
However, a more important part was to test out their cultural knowledge and
operation – to whom to give deference and when, how to approach families,
understanding the generational order of extended families, and others. These are cultural differences for which our
training in western psychology had never really prepared us, but which are
crucial for working with people from disparate cultural backgrounds.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSION
In this chapter we discussed different concepts
and models that have been used to understand the challenges of immigration and
settlement. We suggested that much of the focus has been on the experiences of
those in minority positions and that these communities have often been
portrayed as passive victims of acculturative forces. Understanding the
experiences within an ecological model means that we are able to look at
multiple domains of adaptation. Such a model allows us to consider the
different ways in which experiences of
oppression and exclusion can impact settlement and adaptation. We
showed that oppression related to class and race can impact community
adaptation in the new country.
We also highlighted the importance of examining
dominant and host community responses and policies because these have major
implications for individual and community wellbeing. There are numerous
challenges for community psychologists in working with both the new groups and
the host community. The roles that community psychologists can take are diverse
and will be challenging because intercultural work requires the negotiation of
power, values and identities.
Resources
1. There are many resources available that can assist in working
toward change. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees website is one
that has relevant information about the plight of refugees. Visit http://www.unhcr.ch/cgi‑bin/texis/vtx/home.
2. The
European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations contains research
reports and information about training in this area with a focus on issues in
European countries. The site can be accessed at:
3. There are other pragmatic strategies for working towards the
emancipation of immigrants and refugees. These strategies can include writing
to newspapers to present alternative views about issues; connecting with local
community-based groups (e.g., the Refugee Rights Action Network in Perth,
Australia) and others in your local community or area. Visit
http:/www.immi.gov.au/
References
Banton, M. (1999). National
integration and ethnic violence in Western Europe. Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies, 25, 5-20.
Baumann, G. (1996). Contesting culture: Discourses of
identity in multiethnic London. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Berry, J. W. (1984). Cultural
relations in plural societies: Alternatives to segregation and their
sociopsychological implications. In N. Miller and M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups
in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp.11-27). Orlando, Fl:
Academic Press.
Berry, J. W. (1986).
Multiculturalism and psychology in plural societies. In L. H. Ekstrand (Ed.), Ethnic
minorities and immigrants in a cross-cultural perspective (pp. 35-51).
Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration,
acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review,
46, 5-34.
Berry, J. W. (1998). Intercultural
relations in plural societies. Canadian Psychology, 40, 12-21.
Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of
immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 615-631.
Bhatia, S., & Ram, A. (2001).
Rethinking ‘acculturation’ in relation to diasporic cultures and postcolonial
identities. Human Development, 44, 1-18.
Birman, D. (1994). Acculturation and
human diversity in a multicultural society. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts,
& D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives of people in context
(pp. 261-284). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward
and experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32,
513-531.
Campbell, C., & McClean, C.
(2002). Representations of ethnicity in people’s accounts of local community
participation in a multi-ethnic community in England. Journal of Community
and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 13-29.
Cox, D. R. (1989). Welfare
practice in a multicultural society. Sydney, Australia: Prentice Hall.
Dion, K. L. (2001). Immigrants’
perceptions of housing discrimination in Toronto: The Housing New Canadians
Project. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 523-539.
Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F.,
Jackson, L. M., Armstrong, & Tamara, L. (2001). The immigration dilemma:
The role of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national
identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 389-412.
Fenton, S. (1999). Ethnicity,
racism, class, and culture. Houndsmills, Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Fine, M., Weis, L., Powell,
L.C., & Mun Wong, L. (Eds.), Off
white: Readings on race, power, and society. New York: Routledge.
Fisher, A. T., Karnilowicz, W.,
& Ngo, D. (1994). Researching the provision of intellectual disability
services in a Vietnamese community in Australia. The Community Psychologist, 27(3), 13-14.
Fisher, A. T., & Sonn, C. C.
(2002). Sense of community in Australia and the challenges of change. Journal
of Community Psychology, 30, 579-609.
Frankenberg, R. (1993). The
social construction of white women, whiteness race matters. London, UK:
Routledge.
Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R.
(1995). Immigrant Latino parents’ values and beliefs about there children’s
education: Continuities and discontinuities and generations across cultures and
generations. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 9, 183-228.
Hage, G. (1998). White nation:
Fantasies of white supremacy in a multicultural society. Sydney, Australia:
Pluto Press.
Heller, K., & Swindle, R. W.
(1983). Social networks, perceived social support, and coping with stress. In
R. D. Felner, L. A. Jason, J. Moritsugu, & S. S. Farber , (Eds.), Preventive
psychology: Theory, research and practice (pp. 87-103). New York: Pergamon.
Hermans, H. J. M., & Kempen, H.
J. G. (1998). Moving cultures: The perilous problem of cultural dichotomies in
a globalizing society. American Psychologist, 53, 1111-1120.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures
consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hughes, D., Seidman, E., &
Williams, N. (1993). Cultural phenomena and the research enterprise: Toward a
culturally anchored methodology. American Journal of Community Psychology,
21, 687-703.
Jones, J. (1997). Prejudice and
racism (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Joppke, C. (1999). How immigration
is citizenship: A comparative view. Ethnic and Racial Studies,
22, 629-652.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1996). Family
and human development across cultures: A view from the other side. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lafromboise, T.,
Coleman, H., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism:
Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 395-412.
Lewis, R. (2001). The
construction of identity through the dimensions of race, ethnicity and gender:
The experience of ‘Coloured’ South African women in Western Australia.
Unpublished PhD data, Edith Cowan University. Perth, Australia.
Lonner, W. J., &
Malpass, R. S. (Eds.) (1994). Psychology and culture. Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Martin, S. F. (2001). New
issues in refugee research: Global migration trends and asylum (no. 40).
UNHCR. Available: http://www.unhcr,ch/refworld/pubs/pubon/htm>. [Accessed:
20 May2001].
Mitchell, R. E., &
Trickett, E. J. (1980). Task force report: Social networks as mediators of
social support: An analysis of the effects and determinants of social supports.
Community Mental Health Journal, 16, 27-44.
O'Donnell, C. R.,
Tharp, R. G., & Wilson, K. (1993). Activity settings as the unit of
analysis: A theoretical basis for community intervention and development. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 21, 501- 520.
Ogbu, J. U. (1994).
From cultural differences to differences in cultural frame of reference. In P.
M. Greenfield & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Crosscultural roots of minority
child development (pp. 365-391). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G.,
Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and
well-being: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 493-510.
Prilleltensky, I., & Nelson, G.
(2000). Promoting child and family wellness: Priorities for psychological and
social interventions. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10,
85-105
Rappaport, J. (1977). Community psychology: Values, research, and
action. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Rappaport, J.,
Davidson, W. S., Wilson, M. N., & Mitchell, A. (1975). Alternatives to blaming
the victim or the environment. American Psychologist, 30 , 525-528.
Redfield, R., Linton,
R., & Herskovits, M. L. (1936). Memorandum for the study of acculturation. American
Anthropologist, 38, 149-152.
Robertson, N. R.,
Thomas, D. R., Dehar, M-A. B., & Blaxall, M. (1989). Development of
community psychology in New Zealand: A Waikato perspective. New Zealand
Journal of Psychology, 18, 13-24
Sam, D. L. (2000).
Psychological adaptation of adolescents with immigrant backgrounds. The
Journal of Social Psychology, 140, 5-25.
Segal, M. H., Dasen,
P. R., Berry, J. W., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1999). Human behavior in global
perspective: An introduction to cross-cultural psychology ( 2nd ed.).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Sherif, M. (1966). In
common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Sidanius, J. (1993).
The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression: A social
dominance perspective. In S. Iyengar and W. J. McGuire (Eds.), Explorations
in political psychology (pp. 183-219). Durham, SC: Duke University Press.
Smith, E. J. (1991).
Ethnic identity development: Toward the development of a theory within the
context of majority/minority status. Journal of Counseling and Development,
70, 181-188.
Sonn, C. C. (1996). The
role of psychological sense of community among coloured South African
immigrants. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Victoria University of Technology,
Melbourne, Australia.
Sonn, C. C. (2002).
Immigrant adaptation: Understanding the process through sense of community. In
A. T. Fisher, C. C. Sonn, and B. J. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of
community: Research, applications, and implications (pp. 205- 222). New
York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Sonn C. C., & Fisher,
A. T. (1996). Sense of community in a politically constructed group. Journal
of Community Psychology, 24, 417-430.
Sonn C. C., &
Fisher, A. T. (1998). Sense of community: Community resilient responses to
oppression and change. Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 457-472.
Sonn, C. C., &
Fisher, A. T. (in press). Identity and oppression: Differential responses to an
in-between status. American Journal of Community Psychology.
Sonn, C. C., Fisher,
A. T, & Bustello, S. (1998). Sense of community: A different look at migrant
adaptation. Paper presented at the 6th National
Australia-New Zealand/ Aotearoa Community Psychology conference held at
Hamilton/Kirikiriroa, 2-5 July.
Tajfel, H.
(1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Ter Wal, J., Verdun, A. and
Westerbeek, K. (1995). The Netherlands: Full or at the limits of tolerance. In
B. Baumgartl and A. Favell (Eds.). New xenophobia in Europe (pp. 33‑48),
The Hague: Kluwer.
Triandis, H. C.
(1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Triandis, H. C.
(1996a). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American
Psychologist, 51, 407-415.
Triandis, H. C.
(1996b). Culture and social behavior. In W. J. Lonner, & R. S. Malpass
(Eds.), Psychology and culture (pp. 169-173). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Trickett, E. J.
(1996). A future for community psychology: The contexts of diversity and the
diversity of contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24,
209-229.
Watts, R. (1994a).
Oppression and sociopolitical development. The Community Psychologist, 12 (2),
24-26.
Watts, R .J. (1994b).
Paradigms of diversity. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, and D. Birman (Eds.), Human
diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 49-80). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Watts, R., Griffith,
D., Abdul-Adil, J. (1999). Sociopolitical development as an antidote for
oppression: Theory and action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27,
255-272.
|
Text Box 17.1 Words and meanings in immigrant adjustment The ways in which immigrants and refugees are
described carry powerful messages, often reflecting the government policies
of the times. We will use some of these words, particularly from Australia,
to illustrate a number of these issues. Our favourite description of immigrants and others
is aliens. This is the USA’s use of the term ‘aliens’ for
anyone who does not have citizenship -- legal aliens, illegal aliens,
permanent aliens, temporary alience. (From the Immigration and Naturalization
Service website glossary: ‘Alien ‑ Any person not a citizen or national
of the United States.’) New Australians. The wave of immigration to
Australia after World War II saw a shift from British to southern Europeans
accounting for the much bigger proportion of immigrants. The term New
Australians was used to indicate the assimilationist government
policies in place. The Ethnics. In the 1970s, the
Australian government introduced a policy of integration rather than
assimilation – the policy of multiculturalism (an integration
strategy). In some ways, it was sold to the public as a celebration of the
ethnic diversity of the population, and the welcoming and sharing of various
cultures. In this period the federal government had the Department of
Immigration and Ethic Affairs. While many accepted the multicultural policy, the
use of “The Ethnics” became a mixed term, but often one of
denigration, referring to immigrants from non-Anglo backgrounds as
ethnics. For those who held assimilationist views, it was often used to
target people who, supposedly, received special privileges. Later came a wave of refugees from Vietnam, usually
from the south, after the fall. As they often came by sea, in leaky boats,
they were referred to as “boat people.” Although not always
positive in its use, it carried a note of respect for how they got here, and
from what they had escaped. The last few years has seen a new wave of arrivals
by sea, often from places such as Afghanistan and Iraq. Although most
recognise them as refugees or asylum seekers, the Government has been strong
in its use of other terms. Refugees and asylum seekers convey a special
status – just like the earlier boat people. They, however, were called illegals,
or queue jumpers, terms used to denigrate and demonise them
from officials. Of course, it denies these people their rights under
international law – and denies the fact that there are no queues, indeed
nowhere to queue, in the places from which
they escaped. It has been suggested that these terms reflect a
change in government policy back to an assimilationist, or even a new white
Australia policy. Whatever the case may be, the terms reflect a hardening of
official stance and policy regarding immigration and refugees. |
Table 17.1.
Models of Individual and Group Responses to Intergroup Contact
|
Author |
Strategy |
Characteristics |
|
Bochner (1982) |
Passing |
Rejects culture
of origin, accepts second culture |
|
|
Chauvinistic |
Exaggerates
first culture, rejects second culture |
|
|
Marginal
|
Moves between
cultures |
|
|
Mediating |
Integration of
both cultures |
|
Berry (1984) |
Assimilation |
Denounce
culture of origin, moves into dominant culture |
|
|
Integration |
Maintains
culture of origin, participates in dominant culture |
|
|
Separatism |
Maintains
culture of origin, minimal contact with dominant culture |
|
|
Marginalization |
Little interest
in culture of origin or dominant culture |
|
Tajfel (1981) |
Assimilation |
Rejection of
minority status |
|
|
Full
assimilation |
Denounce
culture of origin and is accepted by dominant group |
|
|
Partial
assimilation |
Negative
connotations maintained, not fully accepted |
|
|
Passing |
Rejection of
original culture acceptance of new one |
|
|
Accommodation |
Retains
identity and competes in terms of aspects dominant group values |
|
|
Internalization |
Internalization
of status of inferiority |
Table 17.2.
Watts’ Model of Sociopolitical Development
|
Stage |
Characteristics |
|
Acritical |
internalized
feelings of inferiority and powerlessness |
|
Adaptive |
attempts to
maintain positive sense of self through accommodationist strategies or
antisocial means |
|
Precritical |
developing
doubts about adaptation |
|
Critical |
develop
understanding of forces maintaining oppression |
|
Liberation |
involvement in
social action |