Integration

There is no consensus in the scientific community regarding the concept of integration. "Integration is understood either as a process, a function, or a goal" (Fincke 2009:41).

There are numerous theories, opinions, and evaluations regarding the concept of integration. In this context, the terms assimilation and acculturation are frequently used. Below, I will present central integration theories and critically examine and question the concept.

Milton M. Gordon's Integration Theory

Acculturation and assimilation are the two central concepts in Milton M. Gordon's theory. Gordon primarily uses the term acculturation on the cultural level (Gordon 1964: 59). He argues that the interaction of people with different cultural backgrounds always results in a change in the cultural behavior of at least one of the groups (Gordon 1964: 59). The various groups and individuals thus encounter and change each other (Gordon 1964: 105). However, acculturation does not sufficiently describe the structural and social interweaving and the self-identification of the individual. Gordon describes this with the term assimilation. Assimilation thus refers to the mutual interweaving and penetration of different groups (Gordon 1964: 81). In this process, a common cultural life is formed in which individuals share their stories and experiences. This happens through the appropriation of memories, opinions, and attitudes (Gordon 1964: 81).

According to Gordon, integration is possible when the various groups open up to each other. For this to happen, fears and prejudices towards the other group must be completely abandoned, as only then can genuine social interaction occur (Gordon 1964: 246).

Shmuel N. Eisenstadt's Integration Theory

For the sociologist Shmuel N. Eisenstadt, integration occurs within the given structural properties of the reception conditions. According to his theory, a decisive factor is that the migrant is willing to recognize and identify with the social structures of the receiving society (Eisenstadt 1951: 224).

He identifies four types of integration, which, if all are experienced by a migrant, result in successful integration.

The first is adaptive integration (Eisenstadt 1952: 225). This adaptive integration is achieved through the establishment of social contacts with people from the receiving country and aims at positive identification with the structures and values of the receiving society (Eisenstadt 1952: 225). Both the receiving society must be willing and offer opportunities for adaptive integration, and the migrants must be ready to engage (Eisenstadt 1952: 225). Since adaptive integration depends on this mutual willingness, this phase of integration is particularly susceptible to crises and proceeds relatively slowly according to Eisenstadt.

The second type of integration described by Eisenstadt is instrumental integration (Eisenstadt 1952: 229). This involves a more instrumental and goal-oriented form of integration (Eisenstadt 1952: 229). It refers to the initial phase of integration in which migrants primarily engage in economic activities for predominantly practical reasons, as it is mainly about using one's own resources for economic advantage (Eisenstadt 1952: 229). While migrants do adopt the roles and processes of the receiving society, Eisenstadt does not consider this to mean that the values of the receiving society are actually adopted (Eisenstadt 1952: 229).

Solidaristic integration describes the solidarity and identification of migrants with the people of the receiving country (Eisenstadt 1952: 374). This process is significantly limited by the fact that migrants continue to hold onto the values of their own ethnic group and want to pass these values on to the people of the receiving country. Nevertheless, identification with the receiving society also occurs (Eisenstadt 1952: 374). This leads to migrants developing a sense of belonging, which in turn fosters the motivation to participate in the social life of the receiving country (Eisenstadt 1952: 374). For successful solidaristic integration, Eisenstadt considers it important to find commonalities between one's own group and the receiving society, as this significantly facilitates the integration process. The willingness to communicate with each other is thus a prerequisite.

In addition to the willingness to communicate, cultural integration is also a prerequisite for the previously described solidaristic integration (Eisenstadt 1954: 172). Cultural integration describes the adoption of emotional expressions and symbols that are significant for everyday life in the receiving country (Eisenstadt 1954: 172). Without this adoption, proper communication, and thus solidarity and identification, cannot occur. Eisenstadt notes that depending on the history and origin of the migrants, various aspects are already present; therefore, not every migrant needs to experience all four types of integration (Eisenstadt 1954: 172). This also means that the time required for successful integration can vary. Moreover, it becomes clear how complex the integration process is according to Eisenstadt's views and why there are different outcomes within this process.

Hartmut Esser's Integration Theory

The theories presented by Gordon and Eisenstadt form the basis for the widely discussed theory by Mannheim Professor Hartmut Esser. Esser bases his theory on an action-theoretical model that refers to cognitive theories of individual action and learning (Esser 1980: 70). Thus, the actions of individual actors are always understood as conscious decisions aimed at maximizing personal benefit (Esser 1980: 70). Considering this basic assumption in the context of migration, Esser posits that processes such as language acquisition or educational qualifications are individual adaptation efforts by migrants (Esser 1980: 13).

Furthermore, Esser argues that the change of location for migrants is always a form of desocialization (Esser 1980: 107). Following this desocialization process, Esser describes a resocialization process in the new receiving country (Esser 1980: 107). Thus, migrants must build new social relationships, understand the system of the receiving society, and find new reference frameworks (Esser 1980: 107).

Esser divides the relationships of migrants to the system of the receiving society into three areas of integration, which he labels acculturation, integration, and assimilation (Esser 1980: 20).

Acculturation describes the blending of various influences and originates from social and cultural anthropology (Esser 1980: 20). It differentiates between the pure exchange of cultural elements upon first contact, the integration of various elements into the receiving country, and the new learning of cultural skills (Esser 1980: 20). For Esser, it is not just about the adoption of cultural skills but rather about the new learning of these skills, which in turn leads to the creation of an entirely new cultural unit.

The process of integration, according to Esser, refers to learning (Esser 1980: 75). Integration, as per Esser, can be subdivided into three points: first, personal integration. This is based on a learning process and is a result of successful changes in perception and evaluation (Esser 1980: 75). Successful personal integration refers to the feeling of migrants that balances their needs and demands with the available opportunities in the receiving country (Esser 1980: 75). Social integration means the inclusion of migrants in social relationships (Esser 1980: 23). It is important that there is a balance between relationships with the receiving society and relationships with their own group (Esser 1982: 282). By establishing relationships with the receiving society, migrants adopt social roles that correspond to the norms and expectations of the receiving country (Esser 1980: 20). In the third area, systematic integration, a balance between the systems must exist (Esser 1982: 282).

Following the processes of acculturation and integration is the phase of assimilation (Esser 1980: 81). This goes beyond the mere satisfaction of the basic needs of migrants and can only occur if the migrant focuses on further goals (Esser 1980: 81). Therefore, assimilation is also the final stage of the integration process according to Esser. Esser emphasizes that there is a difference between assimilation and integration (Esser 1980: 171). He sees the difference in that the migrant, in the case of assimilation, has the opportunity to choose from a variety of options, and this choice is identical to that of the people from the receiving country (Esser 1980: 171).

Integration

Esser has also identified two variables within the assimilation process: person and environment (Esser 1982: 283). The sub-variables motivation, cognition, attribution, and resistance are assigned to the variable person (Esser 1980: 102). Motivation refers to incentives, cognition describes subjective expectations, attribution relates to general trust, and resistance means the weighing of consequences (Esser 1980: 102). The second variable, environment, has three sub-variables according to Esser (Esser 1980: 211). These include opportunities, which refer to the facilitation or support of the assimilation process; barriers, which capture conditions that make the process more difficult; and alternatives, which refer to action possibilities that are not in line with assimilation (Esser 1980: 211).

In Esser's comprehensive integration theory, the obligation of the migrant to actively adapt is a recurring, central element. Although this has been criticized repeatedly, this obligation and expectation placed on the migrant are clearly evident in German integration policy (Aumüller 2009: 84).

Critique

In recent years, the concept of integration and the theories and beliefs embedded within it have been increasingly criticized. One criticism is the clear distinction between the purported "others," from whom conformity and adaptation to the purported societal standards of the receiving society are demanded. Additionally, it is criticized that structural inequalities and discriminations are insufficiently addressed, and primarily a one-sided adaptation effort is assumed. Alongside the demand to replace the term integration with inclusion, a paradigm shift is increasingly sought.

References

Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. (1951): The place of elites and primary groups in the absorption of new immigrants in Israel, in: The American Journal of Sociology (57): 222-231.

Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. (1952): The process of absorption of new immigrants in Israel, in: Human Relations (5): 223-246.

Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. (1954): The absorption of immigrants. London: Rutledge.

Esser, Hartmut (1980): Aspekte der Wanderungssoziologie. Darmstadt: Luchterhand.

Esser, Hartmut (1982): Sozialräumliche Bedingungen der sprachlichen Assimilation von Arbeitsmigranten, in: Zeitschrift für Soziologie (11): 279-306.

Fincke, Gunilla (2009): Abgehängt, chancenlos, unwillig? Eine empirische Reorientierung von Integrationstheorien zu MigrantInnen der zweiten Generation in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: VS.

Gordon, Milton M. (1964): Assimilation in American Life. The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press.