Question 1
Assimilation, ethnic pluralism or multiculturalism in the US and transnationalism for immigrants share certain similarities but even though they also differ markedly with reference to migration of women and their rights or status in the receiving nation. Either way, immigrants have got to eventually adapt to one of these immigration aspects in the long run. One notable similarity among these concepts is that all of them share the notion of social relations among members of the society. They all relate to the social interactions that exist within the members of the community, particularly between immigrants and their new-found friends and their families back in their countries (Alba & Nee 126). Multiculturalism is also similar to assimilation in that the latter is associated with certain aspects of acculturation which is the immigrants eventually adapt to the local cultures of the people in the country they have migrated into. Moreover, transnationalism is related to assimilation and ethnic pluralism in that all of them relate to some social connection to some entity such as a group of people or a nation. Under transnationalism, immigrants normally tend to show attachment to their countries of origin even after settling in the receiving state. Additionally, as Marger notes, both assimilation and pluralism entail several forms and dimensions and involve social institutions and processes (171).
On the other hand, there exist a number of differences among these concepts as far as women’s migration or migration in general is concerned. To begin with, Marger states that “pluralism is the opposite of assimilation” (172) since ethnic pluralism encourages diversity among groups and maintenance of boundaries among the groups while assimilation entails one group striving to learn the cultural aspects of another group of people. Moreover, even after being assimilated into the cultural aspects of the host state, most immigrants still show willingness to identify with their own cultural identities. Additionally, a study by Morawska on transnationalism reveals that migrants from both Eastern and Southern European countries do show some social attachment to their home countries by sending constantly engaging with their families back at home. Additionally, women migrants into the US tend to show attachments to their home states by sending part of their income back to their families. Some African Americans and Asians are even unwilling to fully get assimilated into the ways of the Whites (151). This shows how the concept of transnationalism differs from assimilation. In other words, when it comes to women’s and even men’s migration, ethnic or cultural and national attachment override assimilation. Immigrants in most cases get assimilated into foreign ways barely or merely to learn the second language that would enable them to progress in their places of employment and possibly achieve their dream of being elite high income earner (Oishi11). In addition to this, these three concepts differ in relation to women’s migration in that while ethnic pluralism relates to the specific culture of the immigrants, assimilation involves the ways through which the different groups strive to fit into the sociocultural dimensions of the other groups in the society.
I think the best way for the immigrants to adapt to the host countries or societies is through ethnic pluralism. This is because, through multiculturalism, the immigrants are likely to be bound into the social, economic and political system s of the host society. Structural pluralism ensures that the various institutions that make up the host society are able to accommodate the immigrants. It is also mostly involuntary and is evident in many areas of the migrant’s social life as Marger (173) puts it.
Question 2
Women’s migration in the wake of assimilation, cultural pluralism and transnationalism beg the question as to whether women really gain or lose more from migration. A determination as to whether or not women while compared to men benefit more from migration may be looked at in terms of the causes of migration, the relative ease or difficulty of migrating for women the occupational and economic status of women migrants in the host society and the effects of migration on their social status and gender. Nana identifies the pull factors that cause or compel women to migrate as poverty, low wages and high unemployment rates in the countries of origin and the pull factors such as the “chronic need for foreign workers to perform menial jobs” (7). A study by Grasmuck and Pessar among Dominican migrants and their control over the household budget reveals that “women have achieved great parity” (148). According to these authors, as a result of migration into the US, Dominican women migrants have been able to displace traditional notions of patriarchy in which only men had control over family household resources. There has now been a “movement away from the hegemony of one sex over decision-making and control of domestic resources to a relatively egalitarian division of labor and distribution of authority” (Grasmuck & Pessar 148). Thus, these writers argue and conclude that from their interviews with women informants, women seem to have gained more from migration since the migration has enabled them to move away from the yoke of patriarchal cultural practices and beliefs that hitherto bestowed household resources on the male gender. They now have more control over the family resources and direct the destiny and this has helped put them on almost similar footing with men or on an even elevated position in the migrant society. Nana in her work also points out that in terms of the pull and push factors responsible for migration, women are now in high demand for labor in the industrialized nations than men due to their affordability. However, at the same time, women seem to lose more in terms of the impacts of immigration when they have to tolerate rejection due to lack of proof of asylum status. Nevertheless, from the perspective of the social status of the women gender, it may be argued that women gain more from migration since inmost societies such as the American society; gender roles and status have greatly changed over time. To this extent, women can take up more roles that were previously reserved for men and thus benefit from migration since they can then work comfortably sectors jobs hitherto left for the male gender. Occupationally therefore, women are in a better position when compared to men since given their position in the new migrant society, they can be engaged in more in income generating activities than men. Women also seem to gain from migration due to the fact that degrees of patriarchy and sexual division of labor change when they migrate to foreign countries giving them more control over the labor. Nana also observes that given the changes in the global care chain and restructuring, there has been a global increase in the demand for domestic workers to serve as housekeepers and caregivers, particularly in the US (3). This puts women in a better position than their male counterparts given further that “migrant women are also in the global manufacturing sector” (Oishi 3).
Works Cited
Alba, Richard and Victor Nee. "Assimilation." Waters, Mary C and Reed Ueda. The New Americans: A giuide to immigration since 1963. Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press, 2007. 125-136.
Grasmuck, Sherri and Patricia R Pessar. "Between two islands: Dominican international migration." Grasmuck, Sherri and PatriciR Pessar. Households and interntional migration: Dynamics of generation and gender . Berkeley, Los Angeles & Oxford: University of California Press, 1991. 148-161. Print.
Marger, Martin N. Race and ethnic relations: Amercan and global perspectives. Sydeny: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.
Morawska, Ewa. "Transnationalism." Waters, Mary C and Reed Ueda. New Americans: A guide top immigration since 1965. Cambridge, Massachisetts & London: Harvard Univeraity Press, 2007. 150-163. Print.
Oishi, Nana. Women in motion: Globalization, state policies, and labor migration in Asia. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2005. Print.
