Adolescents Acculturation Assistance

When people move to a new setting, they adjust in different ways. Many researchers have examined this and have gained an understanding of the entire process and how it might be improved. Students and adolescents confront the same dilemma when they move to college or to another nation to further their education. They are compelled to acclimate to their new surroundings, including cuisine, norms, religion, and people. Life in a new setting can be difficult for adolescents, especially if it is their first time away from home. Being away from home suggests that they do not have the usual support that they are accustomed to, which might appear as stress. Adolescent encounter new pressures particularly the expectation of high performance in academics. International students come with their own personality and culture which can clash with the new culture. This paper seeks to look into the acculturation models that alleviate stress.

Acculturation implies to the changes that occur due to contact with culturally diverse persons, Groups, and societal influences. Acculturative stress is the stress linked with cultural adjustment which might take place at the risk of certain psychological implications. Many theorists have come up with models that explain the acculturation process namely unidimensional, bidimensional and interactive models of acculturation.

Unidimensional acculturation model states that heritage and mainstream or receiving culture are interdependent. According to this model, as immigrants acquire new values, ideals, and practices. They were needed to discard those from their own culture. In fact, a majority of the Americans believe that earlier European migrants followed this model and the current migrants are criticized for not doing so. Unidirectional acculturation model is identical to assimilation or absorption of the foreign culture into the host culture (Gordon, 1964). Gordon suggested that assimilation model that characterizes the steady process of absorption of migrants and members of minor ethnicities into the dominant culture at personal and group levels. He categorized assimilation into seven kinds. First is cultural assimilation and acculturation that is the change of cultural trends to those of prevailing culture. Second is structural assimilation which is an entry into institutions of prevailing culture. Third is the marital assimilation (Gordon, 1964). Fourth is the development of a sense of peoplehood on the basis of the principal culture, and fifth is the attitude-receptional assimilation that is the lack of unfairness and sixth is the absence of bigotry and lastly the civic assimilation which is the absence of power and value clashes.

Gordon’s hypothesis alludes that cultural assimilation is the initial step of the absorption process that would occur and go on indefinitely even other assimilations do not occur. Gordon focused on the importance of structural assimilation (Gordon, 1964). Gordon believed that structural assimilation would facilitate correlations which may result in marital assimilation. Marital assimilation would definitely lead to the loss of the heritage culture. Gordon believed that acculturation would need abolition of the cultural identity in favor of national identity.

Majority of the immigrants and adolescents would be involved in a cycle of intergenerational step moving away from high ethnicity beliefs moving to assimilation. Being mindful of the significance of socioeconomic aspects in migrant adaptation, some researcher confronted the concept of homogenous assimilation and presented a segmented assimilation hypothesis. They outlined distinct kind of adaptation such as acculturation and integration into white middle class, secondly assimilation to the lower class and lastly continuation of ethnic, cultural practices and close cultural ties through social networks in the community.

Unidirectional acculturation model is seen as oppressive. It is believed to reflect the colonization of the third world countries which showed the superiority of the European culture and ideals. This model tends to empower the superiority of the dominant culture and disregard any kind of cultural identity. The unidirectional model is often adopted by the European migrants (Gordon, 1978). There is the notion that immigrants will achieve a better life same as that of the residents once they shed their cultural identity; nonetheless, it has been proven to be false.

Additionally, there are adverse effects of the abolition of cultural identity on the wellbeing of the migrants.

The second model is the bidimensional acculturation. This model was formed following the criticism of the unidirectional acculturation. John Berry was influential in the formation of this theory. Many psychologists realized that even though the students or other adolescents might adopt the new culture, they do not necessarily discard their own cultural beliefs and values. Berry established a model in which the retention of own culture and acquisition of the new culture are taken as independent elements (Berry, 1980). In Berry’s model, the two elements intertwine to form four classification of acculturation namely assimilation that is an adoption of the new culture and discarding the heritage culture. Second is the separation which entails the rejection of the receiving culture and retaining own culture. The third is integration which is the adoption of the new culture and retention of heritage culture and lastly marginalization which is the rejection of both new and heritage cultures.

Not engaging in a crucial evaluation of supremacy and institutionalized repression, bidimensional acculturation focuses on how migrants acculturate themselves in the prevailing culture. Although this model offers diverse outcomes, its concept of acculturation with a strong focus on the shifts in identity, life patterns and adaptation of migrants, has a similarity to the first model perspective. Since it is not deeply rooted in social justice, bidimensional acculturation model are confronted grave theoretical constraints (Berry et al., 2006).. The emphasis is the preservation of the ethnic identity and the characteristics and correlation with the prevailing culture. Depending on their experiences with regard to the different cultures and the effects, struggles as such, migrants might perceive ethnic identities in a different way at various stages of life and might even have a false sense because of the internalized subjugation.

There are studies that show that berry’s integration classification known as biculturalism is linked to the most positive psychosocial results, particularly among the young people. Bicultural persons seem to adjust well as they show higher self-confidence and less anxiety and can integrate into many areas they are exposed to. When receiving and heritage cultures hare some similarities, it makes acculturation much easier. For instance, English speaking nations experience less resistance in the US compared to migrants from non-English speaking countries. Black Caribbean migrants like Jamaicans encounter less prejudice than African migrants from African nations.

The third model is the interactive acculturation. The first two models have tackled ways in which the migrants acculturate in the prevailing culture. Realizing the necessity to elucidate precisely the interactive nature of the migrant and the main culture, Bourhis recommended interactive acculturation model. Key to this model is three elements; first, the acculturation points of references embraced by the migrants (Bourhis et al., 1997). Secondly, acculturation orientations taken on by the widespread culture toward certain groups of migrants and lastly the interpersonal and intergroup relational implication that depict the amalgamation of the immigrants and main culture’s acculturation courses.

Bourhis and his group re-designed a berry’s theory to characterize acculturation perspectives embraced by immigrants in the leading culture. Particularly, they re-conceptualized the marginalization mode into two variations known as anomie and individualism so as to have room for idiocentric people who may not lose their identities but encounter cultural alienation or do not like group attributions as such (Bourhis et al., 1997). Furthermore, interactive acculturation allows the immigrants to retain their culture identity and as well adopt the new culture.

Interactive acculturation is an ideal model as many researchers have agreed upon. It takes into account many facets of life. The three models of acculturation are useful in comprehending the correlations between migrants the leading culture. The three models, however, failed to look into acculturation with respect to leading-subordinate suppression, shared transformations of migrants and the society, formulation of identities and matters of social justice. They have also neglected the societal construction of inequitable socioeconomic actualities confronting the teen migrants especially in the scope of power differential intergroup correlations. Although the models have managed to explain the process of acculturation, the shortcomings point to the need for the development of anti-oppressive and social justice focused model.



References

Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as Varieties of Adaptation in AM Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, Models and Some New Findings,(pp. 9'25). Boulder, CO: West'view.

Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied psychology, 55(3), 303-332.

Bourhis, R. Y., Moise, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International journal of psychology, 32(6), 369-386.

Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and national origins. Oxford University Press on Demand.

Gordon, M. M. (1978). Human nature, class, and ethnicity. Oxford U Press.