Acculturation as Positioning in Social Field:

Relational Acculturation ModelA research project ‘Determinants of inclusive migrant acculturation context’ (DIMA)

Raivo VetikTallinn University

Contents1. DIMA project

2. Field-theoretical approach to acculturation

3. Field-theoretical research units and concepts 4. DIMA questionnaire and pilot studies

1. DIMA project

Background• Financed by Norwegian Research Council• Period: September 2013 – May 2016• Estonian team: Maaris Raudsepp, Jüri Kruusvall,

Larissa Kus, Marianna Drozdova• Partners: David Lacland Sam, Bergeni University, Inga

Jasinskaja-Lahti, Helsingi University

Objectives•To compare acculturation of Russian migrants in Estonia and Norway (plus Finland).•To study political and socio-psychological determinants of migrant acculturation processes along a relational acculturtion model. •To contribute to the MIRIPS project (“Mutual Intercultural Relations in Plural Societies”), led by John Berry.

Key theoretical idea: •To combine practice theory of Pierre Bourdieu and acculturation theory of John Berry in terms of field-theoretical metatheory. •This presumes a redefinition of the research object and method in acculturation studies.•Renessaince of Lewinian field-theory in psychology since 1990s, i.e. Michael Bond 2013, Michele Gelfand 2013 etc.•Ward 2013: „Do we need to rethink or expand the two dimensions or four categories of acculturation in the global era?”

2. Field-theoretical approach to acculturation

• DIMA: we need to overcome cartesian dualisms, which presumes a field-theoretical conceptulization of the concepts of ‘individual’ and ‘context’.

• Recent acculturation literature increasingly highlights a need for a better account of context:

- Snauwaert et.al.2003- Ozer 2012- Motti-Stefanidi et.al 2010

Snauwaert, Soenens, Vanbeselaere, & Boen, 2003, three different operationalizations of the first dimension:•as contact (i.e., participation in intercultural activities), •as adoption of the culture of the dominant society, •as identification with the dominant society.The main finding: there are different results along different operationalizations of the dimension.Reason: different operationalizations highlight the fact that different situations reflect different levels of majority/minority hierarchies and domination.

Field-theoretical understanding of ‘context’ builds on the dimensionality debate in acculturation literature:•Gordon – linear assimilation model (7 phases in the path of assimilation)•Portes&Rumbaut – segmented assimilation model (3 different paths)•Berry – two-dimensional acculturation model (4 strategies).

A major confusion in literature - phases and paths represent holistic (sociological) models, while strategies represent a partial (psychological) model of acculturation.

The ‘mutuality models’ in recent acculturation studies highlight importance of context (Horenzcyk et.al 2013): mutual acculturation model (Berry) IAM (Bourhis), CMA (Piontkowski, Brown), DCC (Horenzcyk), RAEM (Navas).

-all these models focus on the role of social hierarchies and domination in acculturation processes -however, the issues of hierarchy and domination are still understood in these models in terms of background variables (dualism) in the mutuality models, not in terms of acculturation field.

3. Field-theoretical research units and concepts of acculturation

To explain the difference between field-theoretical and variable based research units, let us compare, as an example, two different conceptualizations of ethnicity:•Mainstream theories: ethnicity is a sum of common cultural variables (operationalized in surveys through ethnicity, language, religion etc) carried by a group of individuals.•Relational theory: ethnicity is a form of social organization of inter-group relations and, thus, a relational phenomenon Fredrik Barth (1969) - such a conceptualization of ethnicity introduced field-theoretical research units.

Field-theoreticl redefinition of the concept of prejudice•Reicher (2007): „far from being rooted in faulty cognitions about an outgroup, prejudice is a practice related to ingroup authority and ingroup power“. •Thus, contrary to psychologism and individualism of mainstream, prejudice is understood not as faulty negative perception of individual, but as a synthetic phenomenon, combining social and psychological elements. It emerges in the process of positioning in social field.

• Such an understanding presumes that solution to prejudice cannot be achieved simply by bringing two cultural groups into contact in favorable conditions and trying to change individual dispositions.

• The mainstream approaches to prejudice do not take into account hierarchical nature of social field, which means that they do not see that certain forms of prejudice implement important emotional, cognitive, social, political etc. functions and thus, cannot be done away by attempts to change perceptions (Dixon 2001, 2005).

• Thus, recent literature presumes that prejudice as a form of interaction between individuals and groups of individuals is encoded into the very basis of functioning of social field.

4. DIMA questionnaire and pilot studies

• Respondents’ answers to questionnaire should be understood not as individual expressions of underlying psychological processes, but as indidual social representions of positioning in social field.

• Such an understanding has direct consequences for the type of questionnaire, as we need information about the respondents’ positioning practices in social field.

• Our research units are the trajectories of answers within a block of questions (story), not just isolated answers.

The method of narrative analysis

•Ricoeur, Polkinghorne, Sarbin, Gergen, Somers etc. •Bruner 1990: we do not perceive world as succession of events or sentences, but in broader structures like stories and plots.•DIMA studies the stories along the method of narrative scheme with four elements: problem, cause, consequence, action.

How to make the study more contextual in the field-theoretical sense? From DIMA introduction:

• We ask you to express your opinion and take a position on various issues that have led to two divergent views in Estonian society.

• As a rule, one side is supported by most of the Estonians and Estonian politicians and by some Russian-speaking inhabitants and Russian politicians in Estonia (marked with the letter A) and the other side is mostly supported by Russian-speaking inhabitants and Russian politicians in Estonia and by some Estonians and Estonian politicians (marked with letter B).

Estonian labour force statistics shows that Russian-speaking residents get about 20% less pay compared to Estonians and their unemployment is significantly higher compared to Estonians. There are several different opinions about that kind of inequality out of which two standpoints are the most spread:

• A – The situation is normal in the sense of self-regulation• B – The situation is not normal and needs to be tackeled by

the authoritiesQuestion 1: Do you regard this issue as a problem for Estonin

society?Question 2: How much you personally are disturbed about this

issue?

Question 3: What are the main causes behind the issue?

Estonians RussiansMostly Estonian state 4% 29%Both, but the state more important 24% 58% Both, but minorities more important 56% 6% Mostly minorities 8% 7%

Conclusion

DIMA research strategy focuses on the logic of positioning in inter-group encounters.

Thus, our research focus is not on determinants of inclusive acculturation context (as we did suggest in our project application two years ago), but the logic of action (perception) in inter-groups encounters.