Acculturation - Conceptual Models of Acculturation

Conceptual Models of Acculturation

Although numerous models of acculturation exist, the most complete models take into consideration the changes occurring at the group and individual levels of both interacting groups. To understand acculturation at the group level, one must first look at the nature of both cultures before coming into contact with one another. A useful approach is Eric Kramer's (1988 1992, 1997a, 2003, 2011, 2012) theory of Dimensional Accrual and Dissociation.

Kramer's theory of Dimensional Accrual and Dissociation (DAD) utilizes concepts from several scholars, most notably Jean Gebser and Lewis Mumford, to synthesize an explanation of widely observed cultural expressions and differences along a Neo-Kantian manifold of spatial and temporal variance similar to the work of Edmund Husserl, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, J. T. Faser, Sigfried Giedion, James Gibson, Maurice Grosser, Edmund Carpenter, Edward T. Hall, Walter Ong, James Carey, Robert Levine, and others but with many updates and additions. Most importantly, Kramer's DAD theory emphasizes how various cultures communicate in generalized terms from idolic to symbolic to signalic communication styles that helps explain intercultural differences that influence intercultural and inter-ethnic relations as well as acculturation processes. The DAD theory stresses however that dimensional accrual is simply an additive process of dimensions. It does not presuppose a linear metaphysic nor the ethnocentric concept of "progress" which is presumed in some theories of acculturation claiming for example, that intercultural adaptation moves in an "upward-forward" manner toward the singular and final goal of total assimilation (Gudykunst and Kim, 2003, pp. 381–382) Gudykunst and Kim (2003) define intercultural adaptation as an "upward-forward" progress of "acculturation that brings about change in strangers in the direction of assimilation, the highest degree of adaptation theoretically conceivable. It is the process by which strangers resocialized into a new culture so as to attain an increasing functional fitness... complete adaptation is a lifetime goal." (Gudykunst and Kim, 2003, p. 360).

Because no utopian goal or final solution to intercultural misunderstanding or "miscommunication" (as Gudykunst and Kim, 2003, put it p. 361) is postulated by the DAD theory such as an "upward-forward progress" in human development toward total assimilation, the DAD theory cannot be used to measure movement toward final desired and postulated outcomes based on value judgments. Dimensional Accrual and Dissociation does not posit and advance a particular type of ideal person or society. Rather, it is a social scientific theory, not a proposed method of social engineering. Gudykunst and Kim (2003) make it a point to postulate a utopian or ideal type person they confusingly call an "intercultural person" or a "universal person" with "transcultural identity" (pp. 383–384). They argue that this new ideal type of person and society can and should be engineered by all means available including using the mass media and primary schools to manufacture them "by design" (pp. 389, 395). Though they never cite them, Gudykunst and Kim's intercultural adaptation theory is not dissimilar to the Victorian Era ideology promoted in England for the betterment of that empire at home and abroad by Herbert Spencer, Francis Galton, and Karl Pearson. Interestingly, Pearson saw fit to change the spelling of his own name from Carl to Karl later in life. In fact Spencer's use of the concepts adaptation, evolution, and progress are very similar to how they are used by Gudykunst and Kim (2003) in their theory of Intercultural Adaptation and their ideal-type person the "Intercultural person" who presumably, if such a person existed, would live in a world beyond the "emotional defilements" (p. 385) and distinctions of culture; entirely "above the hidden forces of culture" (385).

Since natural selection is too slow, Gudykunst and Kim (2003) argue forcefully that creating conditions on a mass scale to inculcate this new, more developed and better kind of person is not only moral but will be a "special privilege" (p. 389) for those so "trained" (p. 359). If primary enculturation as a child is missed then they argue that the same social institutions should be used for the "resocialization and acculturation" (p. 359) of unfit persons by means of the disintegration and reintegration of their psyches in line with the "conformity pressure" of the dominant mainstream culture. In this way they may achieve a higher level of "evolution" (p 384), "competence" (p. 364), "operational ability" (p. 363), "functional fit" (pp. 372, 382), and "productivity" (pp. 363, 380). This will assure the smooth running of the mainstream culture. According to Gudykunst and Kim (2003), any resistance to conformity or any lack of enthusiasm for disintegrating and unlearning one's original self on the part of the immigrant suggests that they are "mentally ill" (pp. 365, 373), "hostile" and irrationally "aggressive" (pp. 368–372), weak (p. 369), lacking "self-control" (p. 369), and "maturity" (pp. 377, 381), "self-deceived," "unrealistic," deluded (pp. 369, 379-382), and simply "maladjusted" and failing to "perceive the world and himself correctly" (pp. 372–373).

The key to achieving perfect functional fit and communication, according to Gudykunst and Kim (2003) is for the immigrant to "unlearn" and "deculturize" (pp. 360, 379-382) themselves and avoid "ethnic communication activities" (p. 368). According to Gudykunst and Kim (2003), unfortunately some people have personalities that are inherently less amenable to such deculturization and training and they tend to be "unrealistic," "functionally unfit," and "aggressive" (pp. 368–372). Presumably, since Gudykunst and Kim (2003) define these negative traits as "personality predispositions" (p. 368) or "adaptive predisposition" (p. 370) they could, just as Galton and Pearson proposed, be bred out of the human population through comparison of group statistical means and selective reproduction. While logic may lead this way, current morality does not. Gudykunst and Kim (2003) go more for forced compliance via public education as they argue that the new kind of better person and world they promote can be created by "programming" peoples' minds (p. 358) through intense socialization so that the cultural patterns they (Gudykunst and Kim) evaluate as good are "etched into our nervous systems and become part of our personalities and behavior" (p. 376).

Differently, Kramer's DAD theory (Kramer, 1992, 1997a, 2003, 2011, 2012.) is based on the observation that different cultures manifest predominantly different modes of communicating; idolic or symbolic or signalic, which are merely different relative to each other. No one mode of communication is inherently and universally superior to the others. No final solution to intercultural conflict is suggested by Kramer. Instead he puts forth three integrated theories, Dimensional Accrual and Dissociation, Cultural Fusion Theory (Kramer, 1997a, 2000a, 2011, 2012) and Cultural Churning Theory (Kramer, 1997a, 2003, 2011, 2012) on what he calls "panevolutionary" systems principles whereby all elements of a system, including minority elements, directly or indirectly influence each other's future trajectories in a broader ecological process. This is more in line with chaos theory. Each modality (idolic, symbolic, and signalic) has its own strengths and weaknesses depending on circumstance. As dissociation increases from idolic to symbolic to signalic communication, emotional investment and identification decreases and symbols become increasingly arbitrary.

For instance, according to Kramer's DAD theory (1992, 1997a, 2003, 2011, 2012) a statue of a god in an idolic community literally is god and if you steal it you will be in big trouble. Many millions of people in India believe that "statues of" the god Ganesh drink milk and people in Taiwan buy airplane seat tickets for the "statue of" the goddess Matsu to visit her mainland Chinese home. To take such a statue/god from its temple is more than a theft, it is blasphemy perhaps worthy of death. One-dimensional idolic perception and communication involves identity and being identical. Idolic reality involves strong emotional identification. A holy relic does not simply symbolize the sacred, it is sacred and if lost or destroyed it cannot be replicated. It can be replaced by another relic but if lost or destroyed it is gone. Idolic things and places, such as the Temple Mount or the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem are not arbitrary. They are not merely real-estate. They cannot be moved because the land itself is sacred and so it is very difficult if not impossible to compromise, to negotiate away commitments for to do so is to violate peoples' very identities as devout Muslims and Jews. If you lose your lucky rabbit's foot or magic power crystal you've literally lost your luck or power. By contrast the symbolic two dimensional nature of a crucifix purchased for a church means that if you steal it you have not literally stolen God but it is still a more emotional theft than say a speaker system for that faith community. A two-dimensional symbol involves ambiguity in the form of both literal and figural meaning. Finally, if you choose to communicate in a three-dimensional signalic modality, for instance in x's and o's rather than p's and q's, few if any will care because everything in the signalic modality is arbitrary. The circumstantial nature of the relative communicative competence and effectiveness of one style over another can be exemplified by coaching. It may be more advantageous given the goal of winning for an athletic coach to be highly idolic and emotional in a half-time speech even equating the stadium with "our house," this season as "our time," and the number previously worn by a deceased teammate as "his presence on the field" when worn by another player, but it is more advantageous to be less emotional and more dissociated and signalic when discussing the x's and o's of strategy and tactics days in advance of a game. This is why it is not advisable for an otherwise very sober and analytic surgeon to perform emergency surgery on his own family member but it is advisable and appropriate for the same father or spouse to become emotionally involved and overtly cheer for the same family member during a sporting event or musical performance.

The kind of flexibility that would enable a person to not care too much about differing lifestyles and to deculturize and acculturize with ease would constitute a sort of perfect postmodern non-identity. Despite whatever value judgments one might have about it, pride in one's community, one's ethnic group membership, one's nation and the like, are forms of prejudice. A fundamental premise in hermeneutics and semiotics, which Kramer's DAD theory accepts as true is that identity depends on difference. So too do meaning, communication, and learning. If everyone assimilates into a monoculture that would mean that identity, meaning, and communication would cease to be (Kramer, 1992, 1997a, 2003). Regardless of how one may judge it, the fact is that the stronger one's sense of identity, the more likely one is to care about it, to see themselves as different—the more meaningful it (personal concept) is and the world one inhabits. The important point here is that the more a person manifests self-esteem and self-efficacy the more outgoing and resilient they will be in a foreign environment. In other words, it is not necessarily the case that the more confident a person is the more flexible they will be. Quite the contrary. Pride is a form of prejudice. The more dissociated a person is, the more things become arbitrary and the less they care about them. For instance, according to Kramer's DAD theory, religious identity for a predominantly idolic person, is not perceived by them as arbitrary, not even questionable. By comparison, a predominantly symbolic person may be able to convert from one religious faith to another but such a change in identity has very profound emotional consequences. For a signalic person where everything is arbitrary, changing churches is like shopping. It is a matter of personal choice and convenience, a matter of membership. In fact one may choose to not belong to a religious community entirely without much concern. But for an idolic person religious identity is not at all an issue of membership or choice. It is inherent to who one is. So acculturation varies from one person to another depending on what worldview they manifest.

A pure postmodern nihilist, if one exists, is not likely to fight for anything. This may be good or it may be bad depending on your own beliefs and value system. But regardless of the goodness or badness of such a status, according to the observations that led to the development of the DAD theory, there are few if any real total nihilists in this world. Pure nihilism is a sort of fantasy that is not very useful for explaining actual conditions in multicultural and intercultural circumstances where acculturation and assimilation are salient. Additionally and ironically, nihilism itself is a school of thought, an "ism" which is a particular perspective. As Hans-Georg Gadamer in his book Truth and Method (1960 Ger./1984 Eng.), argues a person without a perspective, a prejudice, could not understand or make sense of anything because understanding is always already from a point-of-view which both enables interpretation and limits it at the same time. Francis Bacon agrees and enumerates such structural enabling and blinding elements of perception/interpretation in the form of his four idols (tribe which involves species limitations such as the innately human abilities to see, hear, taste..., the idol of the theater which involves dogmas and ideologies, the idol of the cave which involves my personal limitations such as my education, my IQ, my eyesight..., and the idol of the market place which involves how others I associate with influence my thinking and perception). Hence Gadamer's claim that naive objectivity postulates knowledge without a fallible knower, that such a philosophy constitutes an irrational prejudice against prejudice. It is irrational because it is hopelessly idealistic suggesting the possibility of what Marurice Merleau-Ponty called "immaculate perception."

Bottom line, prejudice is not only inescapable but it is a necessary condition for understanding or sense-making as we know it. This is why acculturation, according to Kramer's DAD theory, is a mode of learning, of integrating new information, and this process of integration is always in terms understandable to the learner. The fallibility of the human condition and cultural prejudice may seem "sad" or "bad" but the DAD theory is not promoting value judgments but instead offers an attempted explanation of what is the case. Perspectivism in epistemological terms is unavoidable. Just as I cannot go to the gym and lose weight for you so too I cannot learn for you. You must learn for yourself. You must make the knowledge your own. How an individual acculturates is a very individual and personal process. A predominantly idolic person will integrate into a social milieu differently than a symbolic or signalic person. A Sub-Saharian tribesman will integrate into urban Los Angeles differently than a student from Paris. A good example of differential integration and acculturation based on the immigrant manifesting one communicative modality and worldview while their host culture manifests a different one is to be found in Anne Fadiman's (1997) book The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down about a Laotian girl who has immigrated to Merced, California and who falls ill. How her parents interpret her illness is very different from how her doctors interpret her illness. The conflicts and miscommunications that are illustrated in this study can best be explained by applying Kramer's theory of Dimensional Accural and Dissociation. As a social scientist our job is to offer an explanation of why things are as they are—to understand and predict. It is inadequate to say that such problems of intercultural communication can be solved by simply eliminating cultural difference altogether; by one side totally erasing themselves and conforming to the other side's way of thinking, feeling, and behaving. This simply does not and cannot happen. Even if they wish, a person cannot willfully unlearn themselves or change their racial phenotype. Another good example that illustrates differential modes of acculturation is found in the 2008 documentary Split Horn (directed by Taggart Siegel) about a Hmong Shaman living in Appleton Wisconsin. Also recommended is Sabine Kuegler's (1980) book Child of the Jungle: The True Story of a Girl Caught Between Two Worlds about a "German" girl who grew up in the Fayu tribe in West Papua with her missionary parents and what happened to her when she "returned" to Europe at age 17.

Taking into consideration the nature of the contact, one must look at how acculturation results in changes to the culture of both groups. Kramer (2009) refers to such change as co-evolution. Kramer (2010) also addresses what he calls the qualities of entrance vectors which addresses the nature of contact. Interaction potential is one aspect of entrance vector. Interaction potential deals with the immigrant, migrant, or refugee after already settling into a host cultural milieu. It involves how receptive a host culture is to the newcomer, how easy is it for the newcomer to interact with and get to know indigenous folks, and vice versa. Of course language is a big part of this and it greatly impacts acculturation. Regarding entrance vectors, there are essential differences between forced immigration due to war and famine constituting refugee status and selective immigration for commercial and professional desires. Entrance vector involves forced versus voluntary immigration as well as host community receptivity. A surge of thousands of unwanted and reluctant refugees across a border may actually prompt a reactionary backlash from a neighboring nation while, by contrast, corporations may seek out skilled workers in other countries and attempt to lure them with financial benefits to relocate. Why a person immigrates is just as important as the receptivity of her host cultural destination (Kramer, 2000c, 2009, 2011). Unrealistic expectations on one or both "sides" can lead to increased conflict, and/or a more profound sense of culture shock, disappointment, and depression. Examples can include when relatively wealthy people retire to other countries where the locals may expect an unrealistic boost to their economy or when a corporation relocates bringing with it unforeseen problems such as a foreign management style or pollution. Unforeseen variance in presumed appropriateness of inequality among people (power distance), or age or gender appropriate decorum are common sources of unrealistic expectations (see work on expectancy violation theory).

Such differences in motivation, expectation, and perceived sense of agency have profound consequences for the acculturation process. At the individual level, elements of both the original cultures from which immigrants hail and the cultures to which they migrate must be taken into consideration when considering an individual's psychological acculturation. Psychological acculturation concerns the behavioral shifts and experienced thoughts, feelings, and stress associated with cultural change. Differences in psychological acculturation then affect how well individuals adapt to their new cultural environment, leading to both psychological and sociocultural outcomes such as experiencing low self-esteem or acquiring a new language.