Acculturative traits: Issues of identity generation
Acculturation affects people in manifold and several ways. Despite, there is a chance to know more about how does acculturation work, and to which cultural layers affects the most. This happens through the scrutiny of identity-generation processes. As we already know, the question of identification is a very complex topic inasmuch identities are features that respond to certain degrees of subjectivity and self-definition, although there can’t be a self without a self-image, or a self-concept. According to Irene Portis-Winner, self is a “semiotic, sociocultural construct that provides meaning to experience, making communication possible” (Portis-Winner, 1983b, p. 263). The identity-construction processes are given either in the same culture, or within different cultures. From this point of view, we have to delve into identity issues from two points of view: the host culture and the immigrant population. Both groups have different criteria for selecting texts that express their identity.
Identity does not only depend on a motionless set of cultural traits, but is consolidated in many signifying practices. I state that identities no are multidimensional only, but are continuously moving and changing, thereby they might be: post-figurative/co-figurative (Mead, 1970), collective (Lotman, 2001), variable (Cohen, 1994), enacted in cultural practices (Verkuyten & Yildiz, 2007); bicultural (Agar, 1991), lying on discourse (Van Leeuwen, 2009) and so on.
For the purposes of this paper I will ascribe myself to the notion coined by Thomas A. Shaw, who has seen identity as a “signifying practice and [that] refers to people’s use of a range of sign vehicles in an ongoing process of communication that is both intrapersonal and interpersonal and that simultaneously serves both psychological and social functions” (Shaw, 1994, p. 84). In these terms, and broadly speaking, identification has to do with the manifold ways people choose to interact and to belong to certain groups, seeking to share certain signs and sign systems in order to make their environments meaningful.
A second trait that I would like to stress is ethnicity. The concept of ethnic identity, as a layer of identity, is quite complex as well. As a matter of fact, there is no agreement upon definition for the term. Usually it is seen as covering several aspects, such as self-identification, feelings of memberships and commitment to a group, senses of shared values and different attitudes towards one’s own ethnic group (Phinney, 1990). Nevertheless, membership in ethnic groups is changeable and not fixed. How ethnic consciousness is acquired depends on the everyday interaction different ethnic groups keep, especially on how they exchange texts. For the sake of this work, I have chosen the understanding of ethnicity developed by Anthony Cohen, who has “melted” the concepts of identity and culture with ethnicity, which according to him “is the space where culture, identity and symbol meet […] Ethnicity has become a mode of action and of representation: it makes reference to a decision people make to depict themselves or others symbolically as the bearers of a certain cultural identity” (Cohen, 1994, p. 50-51). In accordance with the previous statement, ethnicity is grounded on two main levels: the symbolic level and that of self-consciousness. The former entails a certain plurality, i.e., every individual has her/ his own perception of ethnic identity; the latter is related to the fact that although ethnicity has several meanings, it is always expressed by means of consistent signifiers. Cohen adds to this particular treatment of ethnicity the notion of boundary, which is seen by him as a matter of liminality and consciousness instead of “institutional dictation” (Cohen 1994, p. 56). By means of the boundary, individuals from different ethnic groups realize they are in contact with one another in meaningful environments[iii]. Therefore, they can become aware of their ethnic identity, either generating a sense of membership and commitment to a group, or excluding themselves from these groups. In addition, the post-modern understanding of ethnicity (Fischer, 1986) have shifted to the negotiation of multiple subjects over a group of boundaries and identities, trying to point out the dialectics of the objective and the subjective in the process of ethnic identity formation and maintenance.
One of the ways in which several immigrants around the world make their acculturation experience meaningful is by means of recreating communities of immigrants in their cities/towns of residence (the largest and most successful examples of this communities have been developed by Chinese or Indian immigrants in several countries through the creation of “Chinese neighborhoods” or “little Indias”), and whose main basis is ethnic.
I insist, choosing a treatment of ethnicity is up to the group of immigrants we are working with. One more time, the ethnographic choice will bring forth the sets of regular signifiers by means of people decide to express their ethnic identity, as well as their commitment to one or another ethnic community. In such a way, I suggest to explore the generation of identity traits by establishing an opposition between the identity-generation mechanisms of both ethnic groups, the host culture and the immigrant population.