Article Summary
In his speech, Shaub discusses the four developmental phases of the acculturation process of immigrants in America. In particular, Shaub discusses how some immigrants want to be bicultural, that is, to retain their original personality while developing an American one. Shaub further discuss how culture and religion can influence the bi-culturality of Muslims.
Cited Passage
“Imagine groups of related individuals living together in primitive conditions but still developing some kind of coherent culture. In many cases there would come a day when the tribe had to move---perhaps the food ran out or there was some natural calamity. For whatever reason groups often picked up and left. Some would find an attractive fresh spot and start over by themselves. But some would have encountered other groups who had gone through similar culture development scenarios---and wound up with lifeway and thoughtway patterns that were different from the newcomers. Now what will happen?
In some cases war will break out as each group tries to enforce its culture on the other. In other cases one group will take over and simply absorb the other. But in still others, cultural adjustments will take place on one or both sides allowing the groups to live in relative harmony. In other words, with respect to these last groups acculturation will have taken place” (Shaub 2-3).
How the Passage Relates to the Stories
In Jen’s Who’s Irish?, it can be seen how two families from two different cultures – namely Chinese and Irish – try to get along and have a harmonious relationship for the sake of their children. It can be seen how both cultures complain of the differences in the other culture but how they still try to make adjustments in order to preserve the good relations. In Tan’s Two Kinds, it can be seen how Jing-Mei and her mother are trying to get assimilated into American society. For Jing-Mei, she wanted to be her own person, to assert her individuality and freedom, as they’re not in China. For her mother, she saw America as the land of dreams and wanted her child to be like the kids she sees on TV. Her beliefs about America are influenced by what she sees in the media. On the other hand, Jing-Mei is struggling to find her identity – whether she’s more Chinese or more American. The conflict between the mother and daughter arises because of their difficulties in adapting to the new culture.
Original Article
Paper Presented at
AMSS 36th ANNUAL CONFERENCE
“Perils of Empire: Islamophobia, Religious
Extremism and the New Imperialism”
Cosponsored by
The Department of Government and Politics
October 26 – 28. 2007
_______________________________________________
“Acculturation of Immigrants in America:
Where Do Muslims Fit In?”
(Ph. D Candidate, University of Tilburg, Netherlands)
Abstract
Acculturation of immigrants in America is a social process that has gone through four developmental phases---the first three driven by the nature of the immigrant flow, the fourth by technology. These were The Era of Non-Acculturation (1607-1880), The Era of the Melting Pot (1880-1965), The Bi-Cultural Era (1965-continuing) and The Era of Connectivity (1995-continuing). The last two are the most significant in terms of situating present day Muslim immigrants within an overall acculturational development context.
The Bi-Cultural Era, which was marked by the substantial presence of relatively new Hispanic and Asian minority immigrants, was a period when a new type of personality development configuration emerged---ie. the desire to keep the original personality while growing an American counterpart, both then being available for activation when desired. This was also a period when serious social scientific study of acculturation gained momentum, culminating in a model developed by John Berry. This model featured four choices of acculturational strategy, one of which fit the prevailing profile of The Bi-Cultural Era. I developed a framework called ACES (an acronym for Anchoring,
Communication, Enjoyment and Sensitivity) to estimate an individual’s degree of Bi-Culturality.
Muslim immigrants were reviewed and the conclusion suggested that importance of the Islamic religion and related culture might play a key role in accomplishing Full Bi-Culturality, should this be desired. The Era of Connectivity, presenting opportunities for enhanced connectivity and instant access to vast amounts of information, might affect Muslim immigrants’ fundamental acculturation strategy choices in the future.
Salaam Aleichem. Distinguished Professors, Conference Organizers, Ladies and Gentlemen: Good Morning and Peace Be Upon You. I am indeed honoured to be with you today.
You may know that, like many in the audience were once or are now, I am a doctoral student. My dissertation, which I expect to defend in a few months, is entitled TRANSITIONS IN ACCULTURATION: The Psycho-Social Adjustments of American Immigrants. In it I trace the development of acculturation in America as a social process with four distinct phases, provide a review of the scholarly literature about acculturation, and test out conclusions in extended case examples involving 3 different cultures---Hispanics, Japanese and Muslims.
I would like to share some parts of the dissertation with you this morning, with particular concern for situating Muslim immigrants within the overall mix of what has been going on and what is going on now. While I am myself a child of immigrant parents with some first hand knowledge of the overall immigrant condition I stress that I am not Muslim. I enjoyed learning about Islam from English translations of your Holy Qur’aan, the messages of The Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) contained in The Hadith and the writings of Islamic scholars. I also very much appreciated the openness and hospitality afforded me through a mosque near my home---The Islamic Society of Central Jersey---the company and teachings of the delightful Imam Hamam Chebli, author Moustaffa Zayyed and others as I endeavored to learn as much as possible about your religion and those who came to this country to worship in the Islamic faith while developing aspects of a Muslim culture in America. As a non-Muslim I am, of course, not really in a position to say much directly about Muslim culture. As we go along I will at times pass along the opinions of others more knowledgeable than I am. Where I do hope to make my contribution is in focusing on the contextual connection between Muslim immigrants today and the overall immigrant condition as it has developed in America over time.
First a few words about myself, by way of introduction. I grew up in New York State and had my earlier education a long time ago, graduating from Cornell in 1962 and The Harvard Business School in 1964. Before going back for my doctorate 2 years ago I had a 40 year long business career, many parts of which were spent either living in Europe and the Far East or engaged in business activities that heavily involved knowledge of these places and their particular cultures. With that background, even though I am perhaps not a typical student, I would now like to go to work for you.
Let’s start with what acculturation really is. Let’s take a trip together in an imaginary time machine back to the point when human civilization was just starting to form. Imagine groups of related individuals living together in primitive conditions but still developing some kind of coherent culture. In many cases there would come a day when the tribe had to move---perhaps the food ran out or there was some natural calamity. For whatever reason groups often picked up and left. Some would find an attractive fresh spot and start over by themselves. But some would have encountered other groups who had gone through similar culture development scenarios---and wound up with lifeway and thoughtway patterns that were different from the newcomers. Now what will happen?
In some cases war will break out as each group tries to enforce its culture on the other. In other cases one group will take over and simply absorb the other. But in still others, cultural adjustments will take place on one or both sides allowing the groups to live in relative harmony. In other words, with respect to these last groups acculturation will have taken place.
On the scholarly level the term acculturation has come to include many different things--- there have been anthropological constructs, psychological constructs, sociological constructs. Researchers have taken acculturation to be mainly concerned with domains of cognition, values, behaviours, knowledge, beliefs, self-concepts, ethnic identities or combinations of these. In this discussion I will utilize many of these frameworks to analyze acculturation. As I am using the term here acculturation means adjustment to stresses brought on by extended contact with a dissimilar culture.
I have come to think of acculturation in America as having gone through four distinct developmental phases---the first three driven by the essential nature of the flow of immigrants coming to America, the fourth by technology. Let us take a look at each phase, starting with a period perhaps best described as The Era of Non-Acculturation.
The first British settlement in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607 ushered in a long period when America was to form very deep cultural connections with England---connections which continue in many respects today. But then it was deeper. For most of what was then America was populated by people from in and around England---people who brought with them a distinct Protestant, rural culture with established patterns of family and religious life, eating conventions, laws, and ways of dressing and relating to each other. By 1790 about 75% of the 4 million people living in territory now included in the United States were from either England or Germany (see Footnote 1).
A historical look at early US immigrant realities in this period that is generally well regarded today was provided by Alexis de Tocqueville in his classic Democracy in America, written in 1835. A French civil servant from an aristocratic background, he often referred to the American people of the time as “Anglo-Americans”---inferring a body of more or less homogeneous English immigrants. De Tocqueville described a young, uni-cultural America---rich in promise, potential and resources there for the taking. He was impressed with the general equality he found in America---so different from the highly articulated class structures of many countries in Europe. He remarked:
“The more I advanced in the study of American society, the more I perceived that this equality of condition is the fundamental fact from which all others seem to be derived and the central point at which all my observations constantly terminated.”
If you stand back from the situation and look at it with a broader lens, however, it is clear that the overall situation was far different. The condition of equality which de Tocqueville referred to was in fact far from universal. Two important groups were considered and essentially eliminated from what he constructed America to be. The first was the group of Negro individuals brought from Africa under adverse conditions to serve as slaves. About 75% of late 18th Century immigrants who were not British or near British were slaves---many from West Africa around the current day country of Sierra Leone, many originally professing a Muslim faith that dated back to the earlier days of the
Ottoman Empire. De Toqueville says of them:
“The Negro of the United States has lost even the remembrance of (his) country; the language which his forefathers spoke is never heard around him; he abjured their religion and forgot their customs when he ceased to belong to Africa. But he remains half-way between the two communities, isolated between two races” (ibid)
While there were some attempts to bring slaves into the periphery of Southern White society basically the group was subjugated and marginalized, their original culture displaced.
Then there was the American Indian (The Native American), representing the only culture that pre-dated the English. These de Tocqueville dismissed as inferior in technology to the Europeans, who made no great attempt to integrate them but rather pushed them back as the European settlers advanced. He characterized the plight of the Indians this way:
“It is impossible to conceive the frightful sufferings that attend these forced migrations. They are undertaken by a people already exhausted and reduced; and the countries to which the new-comers betake themselves are inhabited by other tribes, which receive them with jealous hostility.” (ibid)
In some cases the Indians fought back and there were wars. But there weren’t any real attempts on the part of the dominant culture of the day to integrate the Indians, any more than there were real attempts to integrate the Negroes---both groups being obviously present minorities.
The Europeans that came here during that period pretty much shared the same culture. The Negroes were marginalized. The Indians were pushed out of the way. Cultures remained separate. This was The Era of Non-Acculturation.
The period lasted until about 1880, when conditions in Europe caused a substantial change in the nature of the immigrant flow to America. Rather than most coming from in or around England very substantial numbers began to appear mainly from countries in Southern and Eastern Europe---Russians, Greeks, Italians, Poles (see Footnote 2). These were the so-called “new” immigrants. And they brought with them cultures that were very different from the “old” immigrants--- often Catholic or Jewish and with an urban-oriented lifestyle, distinct non-English languages and other life patterns. Some Muslims came during this period. Haddad and Lummus (1987) describe the Muslim experience during the period in this way:
“The immigrants who first brought Islam to this country were young men from rural areas who were often illiterate and with little knowledge of English. When immigration officials anglicized their Muslim names on entry to this country, most were too dazed to protest. Concerned with economic survival in a new land, they attempted to maintain a low profile and not draw attention to themselves or their religion. For the most part they had little Islamic consciousness or even knowledge of the fundamentals of the faith. Not having attended the mosque regularly at home they did not look to do so in the new land.
Life for the early (Muslim) immigrants was difficult. Those who served as peddlers, for example, trudged back and forth across areas of the Middle West selling small items to farmers. Often little integrated into American society, they had to bring young women from overseas to be their wives. It was only after having children that they felt the necessity for providing some kind of structure to pass down Islamic values.”
Generally speaking, the “new” immigrants---Muslim, Christian or Jew---were not welcomed by the “old” immigrants. There were many examples of substantial discrimination against these more recent arrivals---the cases of the Irish in Boston and the Italians in New York being perhaps the best known (Gavin, 2000). Yet the new immigrants continued to come, driven away by hardships in their original homelands and lured to this country by a promise that was often far from reality. The “old” immigrants succeeded in passing an immigration law in 1924 which established a country quota system that lasted over 40 years---attempting to freeze the demographic profile of America at levels that existed in 1890 (see Footnote 3).
In the middle of this period of upheaval a stage play appeared in New York, written by a well known Anglo-Russian named Zangwill entitled The Melting Pot (Zangwill, 1925). This play served to articulate the debate of the time---whether America would go forward as a homogenized or a plural society. Here is a passage from the play, spoken by the character David, a poor immigrant Russian violinist:
“America is God’s Crucible, the great Melting-Pot where all races of Europe are melting and re-forming! Here you stand, good folk, think I, when I see them at Ellis Island, here you standin your fifty groups, with your fifty languages and histories, and your fifty blood hatreds and rivalries. But you won’t be long like that, brothers, for these are the fires of God you’ve come to---these are the fires of God. A fig for your feuds and vendettas! Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians---into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American.”
The main story line of the play---absorption of the new and different immigrants via assimilation---became a picture in the minds of many in mainstream America at that time of what was really going on. But was it? Into what group were the “new” immigrants to assimilate? Many in the pre-existing cohort didn’t want them. Many in the new group faced continuous prejudice and discrimination. In spite of this, some of the “new” immigrants made an attempt to conform themselves to a vaguely defined idea of
“The American Ideal”. However, many more sought to keep their original identity, banding together with others that shared their ethnicity. Many American cities even today contain their China Towns, their Little Italys, their Polish sections and similar ethnic neighborhoods that grew out of this period and movement. Still others of the “new” immigrant group adopted a different type of hybrid identity---a hyphenated version such as Italian-Americans, Russian-Americans or Chinese-Americans, which kept the original part, added an American part and bore an overall, but not particularly strong immigrant connotation. These kept some traditions from The Old Country but basically developed according with the surrounding context they found in America---for example, incorporating regional influences in domains like food, entertainment and language.
This so-called Melting Pot Era, which was still defined largely by immigration from Europe, was to last until 1965. In that year a new American immigration law was passed which eliminated quotas and many other restrictions and led to another substantial change in the flow of immigrants. Immigration surged, a new type of immigrant quickly came to dominate the overall immigrant flow and America entered its third acculturational development period.
This was a time when many more Muslims moved to The United States and when large portions of the infrastructure of mosques and Muslim congregations that exist here now were put into place. But, unlike in Western Europe, where Muslim immigrants in any particular receiving country tended to emanate from origin points that had a previous connection to that country, in America Muslims came from many different places, with many different mindsets and for many different reasons. For example: Arabs from the Middle East brought a more orthodox version of Islam with them. Muslim Iranians fleeing political chaos in the Khomeini Era came from a Persian culture. Turks came from a culture that was, from the beginning, secular by design. Muslims from South Asia embodied a number of traditions. Following independence from England in 1947 many brought a strong post-colonial viewpoint. But there were differences. Indian Muslims came from years of living successfully, in relative harmony, side by side with a seemingly exotic, polytheistic Hindu culture. Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, on the other hand, emerged from a recent history of splitting from each other, each to pursue their own destiny. Many Palestinians and Lebanese came as wartime refugees. Muslim refugees from West Africa came fleeing war and to pursue a better life. African-American converts to Islam added their own influence, first in a more radical form via The Nation of Islam and other groups, then increasingly via mainstream, largely Sunni participation.
All in all, the period brought Muslims from 50 different countries to mix together with each other and with the largely African-American converts. There were different definitions of what it meant to be a Muslim, different versions of Shari’a law. It was the beginning of a formative period for Islam in America.
However, the greatest part of this new cresting wave of immigrants was not Muslim.
In 1960 75% of the foreign born population then living in The United States came from Europe, 9% from Latin America and 5% from Asia. By the year 2000 only 15% were from Europe, 51% from Latin America and 26% from Asia. In that same period the total number of foreign born increased from 9 million to 31 million. Of the 31 million foreign born living in The United States in 2000 21 million had come since 1980. Of these, 12 million came from Latin America and 6 million from Asia. Only 2 million came from Europe. Neither The United States Census Bureau nor The Immigration and Naturalization Service are allowed to ask interviewees’ religion, so we don’t really know how much of this cresting tide was Muslim. However, just on judgement, I think we can conclude that most, with the possible exception of South Asia, were not Muslim (see Footnote 4).
This next period, beginning in 1965, brought with it a large quantity of immigrants and additionally changed the flavor of both the composition of the American immigrant flow and the makeup of the foreign-born component of the country’s population sharply in the direction of Hispanics and Asians. And, from the viewpoint of acculturational process, there was another important development. This was the beginning of The Bi-Cultural Era in the United States.
Looking back on this period The Washington Post ran a series of stories that began with a lead article by William Booth:
“Today, The United States is experiencing its second great wave of immigration, a movement of people that has profound implications for a society that by tradition pays homage to its immigrant roots at the same time it confronts complex and deeply ingrained ethnic and racial divisions.
The immigrants of today come not from Europe but overwhelmingly from the still developing world of Asia and Latin America. They are driving a demographic shift(that)will severely test the premise of the fabled melting pot, the idea, so central to national identity that this country can transform people of every color and background into ‘one America’.”
Referring to this period, here are the words of Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa:
“It is the first time in history that an immigrant community has not had to go through the process of the melting pot which is that of conforming to the customs of the (primarily) English-speaking population in order to be recognized as
Americans.” (Ramos, 2000, Introduction, p. xxx).
Jorge Ramos, a well known Hispanic journalist, writing about the same time as The Washington Post article, speaking on behalf of all in the post-1965 immigrant wave summarized by saying: “The melting pot dried up.” Whether it was ever there as a pervasive phenomenon in the first place is quite another matter.
generation of Hispanic and Asian social scientists who, largely through studying their own ethnographies, advanced the cause of empirical treatment of acculturation. Because that was the main idea of that time I refer to this period as The Era of Bi-Culturalism.
Let us turn our attention now to the development of contemporary social scientific theory about acculturation. Most scholars believe that serious study began in the anthropological community with the work of Redfield et. al. in 1936. There came to be two main issues. The first issue was whether acculturation was a uni-dimensional variable---with an acculturating individual progressing in a straight line from his native culture to an assimilated condition---or alternatively whether both cultures could be developed simultaneously in a multi-dimensional condition called orthogonality. The second issue was whether acculturation affects the hosting group as well as the newcomer group. To make the most of our time together I am not going to detail every important study from this early period. These are cited at the end of the paper as Redfield, Linton and Herskovits (1936), Hallowell (1945), Social Science Research Council (1954), Spindler and Spindler (1967), Gordon (1964), and Teske and Nelson (1974). I do want to speak specifically about Graves (1967) who added an important conceptual piece. Prior to that time, acculturation had been thought of as a group concept. However, Graves brought acculturation down to the level of the individual with his concept of psychological acculturation. He wrote:
“The objective contact situation exists external to the minority group member, who must operate within it, and limits the amount of exposure to the dominant group and the type of opportunities open to him. These, in turn, may have a significant impact on the psychological beliefs and values which the minority group member develops”.
Late 20th Century work by Sanchez and Fernandez (1993), Cuellar, Nyberg, Maldonado and Roberts (1997) and Suarez-Orozco (2001) further built on the idea of orthogonality or multi-dimensional nature as a central acculturational construct. In 2000 Ryder, Alden and Pallhus wrote that:
“people exposed to two cultures, either through birth or through heritage, can incorporate, to varying degrees, two coexisting cultural identities. Furthermore, it does not seem to be the case that the old cultural identity necessarily diminishes while the new one grows; rather the two identities can vary independently. In short, a bi-dimensional conception, with independent heritage and mainstream dimensions of culture, appears to be far richer and more functional than the traditional uni-dimensional approach.” (p. 63)
Phinney (2003) adds: “Currently in the United States, members of non-European immigrant groups generally develop bi-cultural identities---that is they become American but also retain their (original) ethnic identity over time”
Work by Richman, Gaviria, Birz and Winrob (1987) provided important evidence that the host group can be effected by the minority newcomer group. This empirical contribution was re-inforced by the popularity of cross-over foods, beverages and music in the late 20th Century. Building on these studies and observations a cross-cultural psychologist named John Berry from Canada pretty much settled the topography of acculturational theory in the late 20th Century. Berry describes the background factors involved in a specific individual’s choice of acculturation strategy as including the direct effects on him of the new culture, the adjustments being made to the new culture by the members of his original culture that form his relevant sub-group and finally the effects of that sub-group on the individual. Individual adjustments can be psychological, sociocultural or both. Additionally, adjustments run the gamut from relatively simple behavioural adjustments to complex, difficult to achieve adjustments which can result in acculturative stress and serious psychological issues if not addressed. Also relevant are changes in the new culture coming from contact with the sub-group of original culture individuals. These relationships then serve as background factors as Berry’s main emphasis shifts to strategies available to groups as they proceed with the acculturation process.
He continues: “In my view, it is essential to make the distinction between orientations toward one’s own group and toward other groups. This distinction is rendered as a relative preference for maintaining one’s heritage culture and identity and a relative preference for having contact with and participating in the larger society along with other ethnocultural (ethnic) groups.” (2003)
Berry envisions 2 separate dimensions---one dealing with the original culture and the other dealing with the receiving culture. The original culture dimension runs between the conditions of Separation and that of Assimilation. The dimension dealing with the new host culture runs between Marginalization and Integration. He describes the 4 conditions as follows (ibid):
- Separation---individuals place a value on holding on to their original culture and at the same time wish to avoid interacting with others.
- Assimilation---individuals do not wish to maintain their (original) cultural identity and seek daily interaction with other cultures.
- Marginalization---individuals perceive little possibility and have little interest in cultural maintainance and at the same time have little interest in having relationships with others.
- Integration---Individuals have an interest in maintaining their original culture during daily interactions with other groups.
I believe the Berry model is a good way of conceptualizing acculturation. Moreover, it ties directly to what was going on in The Era of Bi-Culturality, at least with respect to Hispanics and Asians. Felipe Korzenny, a prominent expert in
Hispanic matters provides this perspective, one I believe is also applicable to Asians:
“Generally, these days, Hispanics in the United States tend to either integrate
(become bi-cultural) or remain separate but few seem to assimilate or to remain
marginalized Acculturated (integrated) individualsare people who can
navigate between the Hispanic and Anglo culturesthey have a more ample
repertoire of behaviours available to themA tendency toward acculturation or
biculturalism is now the strongest emotional objective most frequently endorsed
need to learn the second culture. Those who in the past had abandoned their
Hispanic orientation are now reclaiming it themselves or through their children.
That is because it is now a positive experience, in general, to be Hispanic in the
United States. Despite remnant prejudice and discrimination, the overall balance
of Hispanic experience in the United States is now more positive than it had been
at other points in time.” (2004)
In my dissertation I proceeded from the idea that those seeking to pursue a Bi-Cultural acculturation strategy would be in Berry’s Integrative quadrant or area. However it has been my observation that there are degrees of Bi-Culturality. Within a rather broad category of one being Bi-Cultural there are many possible positions---ranging from more Bi-Cultural to less. With this in mind I developed a framework which I called ACES---an acronym for Anchoring, Communication, Enjoyment and Sensitivity. ACES starts out with individuals who want to be Bi-Cultural and who have accomplished this to a greater or lesser degree---ie. they have self-selected the Berry Integrative quadrant, whether they were aware of the construct or not, and made at least some progress toward the Full Bi-Culturality condition. ACES, then, places them more specifically within the Berry Integrative Quadrant---yielding a more sophisticated understanding of their individual condition and corresponding keys as to how to communicate effectively with them and help them move toward a greater degree of Bi-Culturality should they wish to do so.
I’ll initiate discussion of my ideas about ACES by explaining what I mean by each component and giving for each a brief illustrative example showing what an immigrant to America might consider doing to help establish a Fully Bi-Cultural condition with his original ethnicity as one component and his new American personna as the other.
The first of the four ACES factors is anchoring (A). I intend this to mean the connection to a culture that initially comes from knowledge about it---understanding the nature of the society, its history, its laws, geography, economics, and place in the world to at least the level that should be expected of a reasonably intelligent, well informed citizen---for example, a university graduate. A second component of anchoring is the ability to appreciate and internalize these inputs---to the point where one can act out the game of life in that country in a way similar to those who are native to it. Someone who wishes to be Fully Bi-Cultural must demonstrate that he/she is at that level with respect to both cultures.
For example, an English immigrant might want to study the development of American law and government to understand differences compared to corresponding old English constructs from which the American versions descended. This would serve both to strengthen anchoring with America through more detailed understanding and lend additional perspective to pre-existant anchoring in England.
The next ACES component is communication (C). Here I am referring to the ability to speak, read and write a language well enough that one can engage in dialogue using not only standard language but well known slang and metaphoric terms to the level where other people who might be involved in the dialogue do not feel compelled to choose their words carefully in order that they be understood. Here again, most people would more or less automatically have this ability with respect to their own culture. But getting to that level in the second culture is not always easy. I am not talking about having accented speech but about the real level of fluency that is behind it.
As an example, consider a Chinese immigrant who, in addition to learning what he could in the classroom about speaking English, sought out Americans for conversation, asking them to please not simplify their phraseology for his sake. This would serve to increase familiarity with sounds from the English language that are not present in Chinese (such as l and r), assure practice with verb tenses that are missing in Chinese and introduce commonly used slang terms from colloquial English that are frequently encountered in everyday life.
The third component is enjoyment (E). Most people have typical activities that they enjoy in their own culture such as theatrical entertainment, parties and sports. The person who aspires to Full Bi-Culturality needs to also come to genuinely enjoy the typical leisure activities of the other culture and be able to adapt smoothly to different ways the other culture approaches activities that are common to both.
Consider the immigrant from Russia, or other countries in Eastern Europe, for whom “a night out at the theatre” comprised going to the opera or ballet. Such a person could go to Broadway shows in the musical or comedy genres to gain an understanding and appreciation for the theatrical experiences enjoyed by many Americans.
The final component of ACES is sensitivity (S). This means understanding the subtle cultural nuances that often change the meaning of what is said or done, such as body language and other forms of non-verbal communication, as well as metaphors and other cultural cues that are embedded in what people say and do that alter their intended meaning from what is apparent on the surface.
In the Japanese culture there is a way of speaking called tate mai. This prototypically Japanese concept means saying or doing things either because they are expected or because not to do them would cause unwanted confrontation. Often inaccurate or potentially misleading information or response is given out in conversations and most Japanese understand from context that the information should be ignored. In American society this would be considered lying, something many Americans would prefer not to do or witness being done. So Japanese immigrants sometimes need to deal with confrontation more comfortably and understand the acceptance of differences of opinion that is a part of many Americans’ everyday outlooks.
These admittedly subjective and arbitrary dimensions represent, in my own view and drawn from my own mainly international experience, important factors in really understanding a culture. Most people automatically have these with respect to their own culture. However, Full Bi-Culturality requires similar levels in the chosen second culture. One who is Fully Bi-Cultural is able to act in each culture as if uni-cultural in that culture---in other words, to play the game of life reacting to changing contextual factors via perceptions, understandings and constructions that are specific to one personality or the other, uninfluenced by forces from the alternate personality.
Returning to the basic concept of ACES and its relationship to the condition of Full Bi-Culturality, to achieve Full Bi-Culturality an individual would need to exhibit high levels of performance in both cultures on each of the four dimensions of ACES. To allow at least some informal measurement I will stipulate 3 positions for each dimension---A, C, E and S:
- A position of 3 would mean that the individual was judged to have full performance capability on the dimension in both cultures (eg. A = 3 would mean that the individual was fully anchored, as defined above, in both cultures).
- A position of 2 would indicate that full performance capability was evidenced with respect to one culture but not the other (eg. C = 2 would mean that the person had complete communications command in one culture’s language---in most cases this would be his own---but that command in the other language was either deficient or missing).
- A position of 1 would mean that full performance was not evidenced in either culture (eg. S = 1 would mean that the person was not highly sensitive to nuances in either culture---in many cases meaning even his own)
A Fully Bi-Cultural person would have a Full Bi-Culturality Rating (FBR) of 12---earning the maximum of 3 points on each of the 4 relevant dimensions (A, C, E and S).
ACES, which is avowedly subjective, can be used either for self-evaluation or for the evaluation of others, based on personal knowledge and/or the observation of behaviors and performance. Putting these together would allow comparisons of S (or self) ratings with O (or other) ratings or for different others’ ratings of the same person to be compared to build up a picture of how a Fully Bi-Cultural S is seen by the various Os in his particular reference group.
I give myself an (S) FBR of 10 (3, 2, 2, 3) out of a possible 12. This is detailed as follows---
- I believe myself to be fully anchored (A) in both American and Hispanic cultures, including not only Mexico, where many US Hispanic immigrants come from, but other Latin countries as well. Therefore my self-rating on this dimension is 3.
- I read, write and speak English with native language fluency. Additionally, I can read and write Spanish to a high standard. When I speak to others in Spanish they can usually understand what I am saying. However, I sometimes have a problem understanding when others speak Spanish to me. So, falling short of full capability in that one respect I earn a 2 for Communication (C).
- I believe that I have a range of activities I enjoy in America that is similar to most Americans. However, many Hispanic leisure time activities are quite opaque to me. Since I demonstrated full capability in only one of the two cultures I earn a 2 for Enjoyment (E).
- Finally, despite not understanding some types of Hispanic games and leisure
activities, still I believe I understand the culturally nuanced areas of Hispanic life
quite well. Accordingly I rate myself as 3 on Sensitivity (S).
My FBR is (3 + 2 + 2 + 3) = 10 out of a possible 12. The places I would need to improve to raise my score are in better understanding of Spanish spoken to me and sufficient involvement in leisure Hispanic activities that my knowledge in this area would improve. As the illustration above shows, I am not Fully Bi-Cultural in the diad American-Hispanic. To more closely approach Full Bi-Culturality I know what I would need to do. If others were to rate me in a similar fashion they would know what to do to move me closer to Full Bi-Culturality. If I could achieve Full Bi-Culturality I would be able to add to my current ability to function at the level of a competent uni-cultural person in the American culture a similar level of ability in the Hispanic culture. I would be able to move back and forth
between the two cultures more completely and transparently than I can right now. Finally, my capability for handling complex, culturally sensitive (American-Hispanic) scenarios in business and in life would improve---ie. I would be capable of more informed, more sophisticated decisions.
I conducted interviews with Hispanics, Japanese and Muslims that believed themselves to be Bi-Cultural. Here first are brief summaries of discussions with a Hispanic and a Japanese that I found to be Fully Bi-Cultural:
Luis is a translator of advertising and editorial copy between English and Spanish, able to work in either direction. Now in his 40s he came here from Argentina at age 10 and has lived among many of the country of origin sub-groups of Hispanics in the US. Luis kept in touch with friends in South America while developing a strong network of both Spanish speaking and English speaking friends in America. He enjoys watching American sports, particularly our version of football, while continuing to play what we refer to as soccer himself. Luis and his wife formulate their social lives not based on whom to expect present at parties or gatherings but on whether they anticipate enjoying the activity.
Many of Luis’ clients are big American publishing companies. He spends a considerable amount of his time explaining the differences between mainstream American audiences and Hispanic ones. Asked whether he prefers to speak English or Spanish he replied that it didn’t make any difference---that language was just a tool for him. At one point he said: “I always feel like a chameleon. If you put me in a Mexican environment that’s what I am. If you put me in an Anglo business meeting or talking in English with Gringos (non-Hispanics) on the street that’s what I am too.”
Hideko came to live in New York while still a small child. Her father was an international businessman who spoke English very well. Her mother had only limited English and additionally maintained a Japanese home environment all throughout Hideko’s early years. As she grew up she made many trips back to Japan to visit relatives and friends still there. Parts of her education were in regular American schools and parts were in supplementary Japanese language schools. She can speak both languages with no accent on either side---indicating that, while the underlying thought processes are different, choice of language is immaterial to her. She is married to a Caucasian American who speaks practically no Japanese. They have in common interests in opera, baseball and Japanese art.
Both Luis and Hideko are anchored in both of their cultures, can communicate perfectly in either language, enjoy leisure pursuits in either culture and are sensitive to cultural nuances on both sides.
Now I would like to read for you selected excerpts from interviews with 3 different Muslim college students---in all cases reacting to the question “If someone were to ask you how you define yourself as a person how would you rank the importance of these possibilities: your traditional ethnicity, your status as a member of the Ummah, being a student at your particular college, being in pursuit of education in a particular specialty or profession or something else?”
Ali: “While it is important to me now to pursue my education (more than my traditional ethnicity as a Pakistani) still more important---#1---is being a Muslim.”
Omar: “It is important as we all learned that all Muslims are considered as one Ummah; that we are brothers and sisters. When I think about it, my traditional ethnicity is, indeed, important but not so important to me to digress from the true Islamic teachings and principles.”
Sanjida: “The nationality is something that comes after the identification as a Muslim. You are a Muslim first, an American, Indonesian, Pakistani etc. after that.”
Admittedly I have been somewhat selective in presenting this particular material. However I believe it is true that the importance of being a member of the Ummah generally overwhelms all other considerations. And for that reason I believe it is more difficult for Muslims to reach the state of Full Bi-Culturality, compared to some other immigrant groups. This is because to be Fully Bi-Cultural one must be able to act in each of the two personas as if uni-cultural, independent of influences from the alternate persona. It seems to me that, if the views of the college students are at all widespread, that many Muslims would be in a separate category---with religion as a kind of all-pervasive factor. Here is another quote from researchers Haddad and Lummis (1987):
“It is important for Muslims in America to view Islam as an overarching identity, linked with and yet finally independent of ethnic and national associations, a common bond holding together those of different backgrounds and customs.”
As I said earlier, I am not Muslim myself and don’t really know if this is accurate or not. However, in at least my brief look at the culture of immigrant Muslims it seems to me at least a possibility.
Before going on to discuss the last Era in America’s acculturational development, allow me to recap briefly. I believe that the American version of immigrant acculturation has gone through three phases so far. The first was The Era of Non-Acculturation, where the major groups extant at the time---settlers who were primarily English, Negroes and Native Indians---did not really pursue any strategy involving positive efforts toward acculturation, in some cases being unable to do so because of their position. The second was the so-called Melting Pot Era, when broadened European immigration led to substantial inter-group animosity which existed in the face of an idea, popular among the mainstream but largely inaccurate, that all would blend in over time. The third was The Era of Bi-Culturality where the new numeric dominance of Hispanic and Asian immigrants---many of whom sought to develop a separate American personality while maintaining their traditional one---came to dominate the American scene. Social science dealing with acculturation developed markedly during this period, mostly in the later part of the 20th Century and culminated with a model formulated by Berry, highlighting four strategies for acculturative adjustment. My ACES framework provides a way to look at degrees of Bi-Culturality, a condition associated with Berry’s Integrative quadrant. In looking at three societies in this way it seems to me that it is much easier for Hispanics and Asian immigrants to reach the stage of Full Bi-Culturality than it is for Muslims. Accordingly, Muslims seem from this viewpoint, to be in a special class, where the dominance of religion is primary.
I said at the beginning that the fourth phase of acculturational development was driven not by immigrant flow considerations but by technology. In 1991 Kenneth Gergen wrote about what he labeled The Technologies of Social Saturation, essentially predicting an information technology revolution. He said:
“These developments---computers, electronic mail, satellites, faxes---are only the beginning. Innovations now emerging will further accelerate the growth of social connectedness. At the outset is the digitization of all the major media---phonograph, photography, printing, telephone, radio, television. This means that the information conveyed by each source---pictures, music, voice---is becoming translatable to computer form. As a result, each medium becomes subject to the vast storage and rapid processing and transmission capabilities of the computer. Each becomes subject to home production and worldwide dissemination. We now face an age in which pressing a button will enable us to transmit self-images in full color and sound around the globe.”
At the time these words were written advanced information and media technologies were just beginning to gain momentum. Starting from the mid 1990s The Era of Connectivity began in earnest. One key component was the internet, which delivered instant, easy communications, information and a wide range of instant problem solving. Numbers recently published by Netcraft (2007), a supplier of data to the information technology industry, showed that in 1991 there were few, if any, websites as we know them today. As of May 2007 there were 118 million websites, situated on server computers all over the world but each accessible via computers in any other part of the world. Websites were being added to the world total at the rate of over 4 million per month. While some of these sites are guarded by passwords and other devices that preclude entry into that specific site, nevertheless the amount of information that has become available seems to me impressive.
Moreover, search engines such as Google use advanced technology to respond almost instantly to inquiries requesting identification of the addresses of websites containing specific information. Thus 2 needs are met---large numbers of information source options being available and the quick identification of the seemingly more attractive or relevant options. An entire industry (web search engine marketing) has developed based on commercial companies’ desires to appear in an advantageous position when searches for their kinds of products are initiated.
Many websites feature internet chatrooms and bulletin boards allowing the formation of relationships with people previously unknown (and, for all practical purposes, unknowable) all over the world, connected by similar interests. In fact, many utilize chatrooms to play at being someone else---a boy can “become” a girl, an old person can “become” young, an American can “become” British, a person anticipating a new life style interest can “try out” a new, different identity to determine comfort level in advance.
According to an international study done by CNET Networks (see Footnote 5), in almost all the 12 global markets they studied at least 90 percent of people who had accessed the internet in the last 30 days also owned cellphones. So another marker showing the spread of the technologies of social saturation might be the extent of cellphone ownership. IDC, another information technology industry supplier, indicates that, in 2005, there were 1.7 billion cellular telephone subscriptions worldwide---about one for every 4 of the earth’s inhabitants. Paul Allen, a respected industry entrepreneur estimates the current cellphone total at 2 billion worldwide (see Footnote 6).
In a 26 March 2007 Wall Street Journal supplement entitled What’s New in Wireless, Sharma (2007) looks at likely future trends in the expansion of functionality of the cellular phone:
“In the next two to three years, consumers will be able to get TV broadcasts on their cellphones with better picture quality than current video offerings---and a greater range of live programming from major networksUsers will also get sophisticated software applications for surfing the mobile Web, and more services to connect with friends, share videos and exchange photos. And they’ll likely see mobile devices that can roam seamlessly across Wi-Fi hotspots (places where wireless internet is available), cellular networks and new high speed data networks, bringing a much faster and smoother surfing experience.”
In other domains, Voice-Over-Internet Protocol (VoiP) telephony has reduced the cost of international phone calls to just pennies per minute, allowing more frequent and longer phone conversations with friends and family far away. Additionally, satellite delivered television has fundamentally changed the nature of ethnic diasporic experiences in many places. In America, for instance, it is now possible to receive live local news and entertainment programming via satellite from home country in 22 different language/culture formats---from French, German and Italian to Farsi, Urdu and Vietnamese (See Footnote 7). Cable television and associated technologies (eg. VCR, TiVo) have spread rapidly in industrialized countries, vastly increasing the range of viewing options---often up to levels of 500 or more simultaneous channel availabilities---and even eliminating the requirement to watch the programming in real time. News coverage has vastly improved.
Now reporters from CNN and other specialized networks provide close-up, live coverage of major events happening around the world.
In America internet cafes, libraries and other public access points and attractive equipment installment purchase or rental plans allow even those of modest means access to the most up to date technology.
What is the significance for Muslims of all this connectivity and instant access to information? Here are the words of Jocelyn Cesari of the Sorbonne (2004) when discussing what she saw as important patterns among Muslims who had settled in the West: “Muslims within the West generally base their religious identities upon one of two foundations: either a secularized bond with Islam that relativizes its demands (Liberals) or a fundamentalist attitude that demands respect for Islamic tradition in its totality(Conservatives).” Is it conceivable that, even though there are many more Islamic websites than before that the overall increase in information availability will tempt more American Muslims to become more liberal and cosmopolitan? If so, what will that mean for a culture that, I believe, stresses conservatism and the primacy of religious tradition?
Here are quotes from Richard Wormser (1994), summarizing interviews with 2 second generation American Muslim students:
“Most Muslims are comfortable with their religion and with being Muslim in a society that is often in conflict with their values. Suzani (a student) says: ‘I love Islam. Islam is a way of life, not just a religion. It’s my language, my culture, my history, my morals. I consider myself a Muslim-American and when people ask me which side of the hyphen is stronger, I say (that) I love America and I owe a lot to this country but I am a Muslim first.’ ” (p. 58)
