Intercultural relations: Assimilation or Integration

presented by Mevlüt TOK

The demand for individuals who can effectively manage and harness complex cultural diversity is growing rapidly. The world becomes increasingly smaller, and each region more multicultural. Success will come only to those professionals. They have the skills and understanding to respond appropriately to the challenges of working across cultures in both national and international organizations.

The concepts of assimilation or assimilating are used to describe the process by which a group’s cultural distinctive character disappears or is abandoned when faced with the majority society. Unlike integration, where the individual character of various groups is not regarded as an obstacle to entering social life, assimilation is forced by way of tough demands concerning adaptation to the predominant norms of social behaviour.

Another difference between these concepts is that assimilation principally refers to behavioural, linguistic and religious changes, whilst integration is about social, economic and political conditions for different groups. In other words, the concept of assimilation describes identity changes, whilst the concept of 'integration' is a concept for societal change.

Assimilation can be a result of either individual choices or imposed by political decisions aimed at cultural, linguistic or religious conformity. In the latter case, assimilation is enforced by political decisions and social norms that allow very little room for variations or deviations in these areas. Even the kind of assimilation that is a result of individual decisions should be seen in relation to the majority society’s direct and/or indirect demands for adaptation and conformity.

Assimilation or integration? Many researchers have pointed out a number of problems associated with the concept of assimilation. One problem is that the difference between integration and assimilation is not always clear. Behind the integration rhetoric, this can, for instance, result in tacit demands or expectations for assimilation.

It is not unusual, for example, that difficulties with integration or the degree of integration are defined based on how much the minority group deviates from the majority. In such cases, there is an implicit assumption that the behavioural forms of the majority of the population are the standard for a successful integration.

Assimilation and inequality With demands for conformity containing more behaviours than social, political and economical resources, it can be said that assimilation is more an expression of social and political control than a striving for equality.

Thus, linguistic, religious and behavioural assimilation is compatible with segregated living or working conditions. A consequence of this is that, even if assimilation can lead to distinctive cultural traits being eradicated, the social, political and economic inequality between the various societal groups remains.

The preferential right of interpretation and powerThe preferential right of interpretation, i.e. the power to define and interpret reality, is a central aspect when it comes to naming and describing social relationships. This applies particularly to relationships that entail an unequal distribution of power, like that existing between different sections of the population.

Some studies have shown that behind the thinking of assimilation there is a notion of meetings between homogeneous and invariable cultures, where the one group, often the majority culture, has the power and the opportunities to dictate the conditions for the minority groups. This idea often provides the breeding ground for cultural explanations (that social phenomena are founded upon an uncomplicated view of the concept of culture) for segregation and social inequality.

Social integration is a term used in sociology and several other social sciences. The term indicates different meanings depending in the context. In general, it connotes the process of combining a group of persons like minority groups, ethnic minorities, refugees, underprivileged sections of the society, to integrate into the mainstream of the society, and thus to avail of the opportunities, rights and services available to the members of the mainstream of the society.

I'm ready to integrate.

But

Are you ready to accept me?

Firstly, integration needs a comprehensive definition. It needs all stakeholders to agree on a set of common values. In my view, integration could be defined as "the bringing of people of different racial, ethnic or religious groups into unrestricted and equal association, as in society and its institutions". Integration could also mean a process of desegregation, ie. dismantling of ghettos and removing barriers. Integration is the total opposite to disengagement.

Secondly, when I explain that we encourages integration, I ask you not to confuse it with assimilation. we would be opposed to any notion of assimilation. Integration is not about socially engineering a new generation based on no distinct faith, ethnic or cultural identity. This is precisely what assimilation would do. We propose people to become loyal to their faith but their cultural or ethnic differences a reason for greater interaction and celebration.

Thirdly, integration it is not a one-way street. Minority communities do not have a moral obligation to integrate into the majority community. Such a suggestion assumes the majority communities’ values, lifestyle, cultures and customs are superior. This is simply an arrogant supposition. Integration must have an element of give and take and willingness to share.

Integration is not the end but simply a process where people of all background come together to make connections and develop shared values mutually. The outcome is a cohesive and integrated society. Integration is like a watch. A watch has small components inside; each component by itself can not be called a watch, although they may function individually. However when all the components are arranged in an orderly fashion the watch works perfectly.

All cultures, faiths, traditions and customs together would form an integrated society. If we take the example of the watch, every component is vital; similarly every stakeholder in such an integrated society would be a crucial partner. It must be a relationship based on proportionality and most certainly on equal worth and respect.

There are many challenges we need to overcome. When we are developing common values the biggest and most pressing question is how to resolve the problems of cultural norms and values that are at polar ends.

There are several examples I can mention that would make developing shared values very difficult. Such as, for one, the fact that European society’s social life is based around drinking alcohol while it is totally forbidden for a Muslim to drink. This means Muslims are not able to socialise with the non-Muslim communities fully where drinking alcohol is so prevalent. Would that prevent us from developing common values?

Let us take another example. The interaction between men and women in Islam is substantially different. While in this country physical contact between the sexes is normal in Islam there are restrictions. In today’s Europe sex outside marriage has become a cultural norm while in Islam sex outside a marital relationship is not allowed.

Despite some of these intrinsic differences I am, along with majority of the Muslim citizens of this country, willing to integrate fully but are you willing to accept us fully? My definition of integration is to retain my identity and values and you retain yours but we agree to interact on civic duties as equal partners, we work for the well being of our country and all the citizens. We run our affairs in a democratic, pluralistic and transparent manner. The aim would be to create a society in which we have unrestricted and equal association.

Cultural Pluralism In our increasingly diverse societies, it is essential that persons and groups having plural, varied and dynamic cultural identities should live together in harmonious interaction and proper accord. Policies that seek the integration and participation of all citizens are an earnest of social cohesion, vitality of civil society and peace. Defined in this way, cultural pluralism is the policy offshoot of cultural diversity. Since it is inseparable from a democratic context, cultural pluralism is conducive to cultural exchange and the flowering of the creative potential that sustains life in society.

Turkey wants integration,not assimilation

We strongly support integration of Turks living in the countries in which they live, yet we’re not pleased with the idea of having those individuals assimilate in those countries in Europe.

Ankara has been encouraging Turkish people residing in other countries to contribute in social, economic, political and cultural fields in their communities.

Integration and immigration laws adopted recently and discriminative policies and escalating xenophobia in some countries are closely connected to the daily lives of our citizens. I believe that these are also extremely important developments. Turks in Germany should learn German but not give up their Turkish identity. Assimilation is a "crime against humanity."

Our language policy is extremely clear. Our citizens who live abroad first of all should teach second and third generations to speak Turkish well. It is not easy for a child to be successful if he doesn't speak his mother tongue well in the country where he resides. Protection of our cultural values -- values which make us -- is also extremely important.

"We want good integration of our citizens living in Europe…Good integration is the fundamental principle here. But we are not willing to have them be assimilated as well.“

…………........... …………...........