All
Cultures express a need for change and at the same time an internal
resistance to change. That is to say, there are dynamic
processes operating that encourage the acceptance of new things and
ideas while there are others that encourage changeless stability.
It is likely that social and psychological chaos would result if there
were not the conservative forces resisting change.
Both
cultures in contact mutually influence each other to an extent, but
the majority of research has been done on the culture that changes the
most, giving an unbalanced perspective of the process. While that
perspective is changing (Landrine & Klonoff, 1995, Moskos &
Butler, 1996), we will focus on research to date.
Contact and participation
Individuals
vary in their participation in the acculturation process.
Measures of Acculturation that have been used are: schooling,
extent of urbanization, political participation, change in religion,
language, daily routines and use of mass media.
An
example of a contact scale is the Berry, Van de Koppal, Senechal,
Annis, Cavalli-Sforza & Witkin (1986b) contact scale for use in
Central Africa. The scale
included measures of use of language (both Sango and French),
ownership of material goods, the technicality of employment (from
hunter-farmer to employed wage earner), religious perspective (from
Animism to Islam), clothing style, and amount of travel.
In the Berry scale, all of the above were found to be
positively correlated, enabling the scale to be used for an index of
cultural contact.
Attitudes toward Acculturation
There are three
general approaches to exploring how attitudes held during the process
of acculturation impacts the changes in a person or group.
1.
Intergroup relations
Attitudes toward the 'dominant' culture impacts the extent to which groups and individuals acculturate (or don't).
A typical scenario has the in-group esteeming it's cultural background more than the out-group, thus rejecting the acculturative influences, ignoring them or screening them out.
2.
Psychological Modernity
Attitudes
toward modernity can be studied from three different perspectives.
The first perspective sees change on a unidirectional path from traditionalism to modernity, and can be seen in the 'Overall Modernity' research of Inkeles and Smith (1974).
The second attempts to acknowledge the difference in the construct of traditionalism, as different cultural groups will manifest differences in 'traditionalism'. An example of this work can be found in 'Traditional-Modern' scales of Dawson (1967, 1969), who breaks groups into four categories; 1) Traditional, 2) Semi-traditional, 3) Semi-modern and 4) Modern. However, it still makes the assumption that there is a single outcome (becoming modern).
The third approach importantly takes into account the
assumption that modernity might not be the goal of change.
For example, Sommerlad & Berry in 1970 explored the
attitudes Aborigines had toward the Australian governments stated
intent to assimilate the group. Thus we can see that some aspects of 'Modernity' can be acculturated, but other 'Traditional' ways can be retained.
Acculturation Strategies
The
way groups acculturate is also dependent on the way the new culture
makes contact, as the initial contact will dictate the attitudes
toward that culture. Whether acculturation takes place often depends
on the relationship between the culture that is receiving the new
traits and the culture of their origin. If one society is
militarily dominant in the culture contact and they perceive their own
culture as being superior in terms of technology and quality of life,
it is not likely that they will be acculturated. This was
the case in the contact between the English settlers of Australia and
the Aborigines. The English generally did not adopt Aborigine
culture. However, some minor traits, such as words for plants,
animals, and geographic locations, were accepted by the English.
Since they were in control of the contact situation, the English were
able to pick and choose the traits that would be incorporated into
their culture.
If
a society is militarily dominated but still perceives its culture to
be superior, it also is not likely to be acculturated to the dominant
society's culture. This sort of disdaining rejection of
acculturation occurred following the collapse of the Western Roman
Empire during the 5th century A.D. The end came as a result of
repeated invasions by militarily superior Germanic tribes.
The Romans did not adopt the language or other cultural patterns of
their conquerors. It was just the opposite; the Goths and other
Germanic tribes generally adopted Roman Christianity, the outward
trappings of the Roman political system, and Latin as the language of
learning.
A
society that is militarily dominant in a culture contact situation but
perceives its culture as being inferior is a likely candidate for
acculturation. This was the case with the 5th century Germanic
tribes that invaded the Roman Empire. It was also the case with
the Mongols of North Central Asia under Genghis Khan after they
conquered China in the 13th century A.D. The Mongolian occupiers
largely adopted Chinese culture within a generation. They were
acculturated by the people who they had defeated in war.
On
a more psychological scale, Berry, Kim, Power, Young, and Bujaki
(1989) described the ways the individual relates to the dominant
culture. These relational
styles are known as acculturation strategies. They are defined by the
answering of two important questions:
(1)
Is it considered to be of value to maintain cultural identity and characteristics'
(2) Is it considered to be of value to maintain relationships with the other group'
When
these questions are answered, we begin to see a conceptual framework
that posits four varieties of acculturation.
Assimilation:
Individual adheres to the other cultures values.
Separation:
Individual adheres to their own cultural values, and rejects the other's norms.
Integration:
Acceptance
of both sets of cultural norms to a greater degree (making the best of
both worlds).
Marginalization:
Rejection of both cultures.
An
important realization to make is that acculturation impacts individual
and social behavior differently across dimensions.
Thus, one could be assimilatory at work, Intergrational in
worship, but seperational in personal life.
Contact
between societies that are military and technological equals rarely
results in acculturation. This is especially true if both
societies believe themselves to be culturally superior to the other.
Contemporary England and France are an example. Words, foods,
and other relatively superficial cultural traits regularly move back
and forth between them (especially in the upper social classes), but
there is no massive influx of cultural traits. England remains
essentially English and France remains strongly French in culture.
Behavioral Changes
How does acculturation impact individual behavior'
We can look at the changes that acculturation brings in two
perspectives. (1)
Behavioral shifts, which refer to the transfer of behaviors over time.
For example, 90% hunting/gathering and 10% wage earner at time
1, and 90% wage earning and 10% Hunting/gathering at time 2.
The
other perspective looks at the conflicts that arise due to
acculturative stress on individuals and groups. We can examine the
impact of acculturation on almost any behavior or attitude.
The amount that behavior actually changes depends on the time a
culture has been in contact, its contact behavior, and attitudes
toward the other culture.
In
the representation of Berry and Kim (1989) we see the most behavioral
change in Assimilation, followed by Integration, then attempts to
negate change through Separation, and a total denial of both cultures
in Marginalization.
Cognition
and Acculturation
As
individuals negotiate contact with another culture, their identity can
be challenged by new ideas of self.
Often, this can lead to cognitive shifts.
A prime example of a cognitive shift would be conversion to a new religion (i.e. embracing a new cosmology). One way of interpreting these cognitive shifts is by observing intellectual changes through acculturation. While much research has been done on the above (Scribner & Cole, 1973; Rogoff, 1981), the findings that cognitive performance is getting 'better' (note by whose standards, the test creator) is questioned by many, as interpretations run from people learning 'test taking tricks' to the Flynn effect.
My personal view is more or less a training viewpoint, thus, if our criterion is IQ, we'll teach people to do better on IQ tests.
Methodologically, the area gets fuzzy, due to the tests used
and their interpretations.
Personality and Acculturation
Stress
As cognitive styles change, it can be expected that people's personalities can shift as well.
For example Hallowell (1955b) found that members of the Ojibwa
had gained characteristics of Euro-Canadian culture, while retaining a
modal Ojibwa personality. This isn't the case in ever acculturative scenario, as the linear reaction above is assimilatory, and the personality changes that might take place in people using an Intergrational strategy would be different (as would be the Seperational and the Marginalized).
The
changes in cognitive/personality styles can lead to serious social and
personal crisis. A short
list of the difficulties that come about during times of Acculturation
would include: sociocultural norms no longer applying, confusion about
membership and self-identity, as well as depression and feelings of
alienation. Acculturative
stress refers to stress that comes about in direct relation to the
acculturation process. In
a review of Acculturative Stress literature, Berry and Kim (1988)
explored the relationships between acculturation, cultural and
psychological traits and mental health.
They found acculturation could work in both directions, in other words helping the person's mental health, or disabling people.
Some
general ways of coping come with habitual behavior, which provides
emotional security in a threatening world of change. Religion
also often provides strong moral justification and support for
maintaining traditional ways. In the late 20th century, this has
been especially true of nations guided by Islamic Law, such as Iran,
Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
Archival,
observational and interview techniques have been used to asses the
impact of acculturation on subject mental health. Some standardized
self-report scales have been used to assess the above, but the use of
positively phrased questions skews the instruments for those who have
a tendency to agree. With their limitations, there has been evidence
(Berry et al, 1987) of the type of acculturation strategy used
moderates the level of stress in the individual.
Thus individuals who feel marginalized and are seperationalist
feel stressed, those who integrate have the least stress, while
assimilators also manifest stress.
The phase of acculturation the individual or group is going
through also impacts the stress felt.
Other factors impacting mental health
in acculturative settings
The
openness of the dominant society certainly impacts the mental well
being and type of strategy used by the acculturating individual and
group. If the society has
a multicultural ideology, it may be easier for some groups to
accommodate their cultural style.
If the society is prejudice and discriminatory, more stress
will ensue. The individuals status is often lowered in relation to
their previous location, which can cause serious psychological
problems.
Copyright © 2003-2005 Alinea Group
