Lets define "integration"

[madd0ct0r]

Recently ive been eeading smil, and his assessments of green energyin context.

One bit caught my eye as he asserts thar europe 1) has an irrevocable reducing birthrate
2) borders north africa and middle east who have and will have a high density young population and a high birth rate.
3) this will create pressures and different possible results
BUT 4) smil seems to consider young muslims as unlikely to integrate

Id like to look at 4) as it ties across many types of these debates.

So what defines integration?

1) a formal ceremony signing up to formally defined shared values?
2) inter marriage
3) change of passport
4) choice of language at home
5) at population level, not being able to distinguish a group from the average on common measures
6) adopting state religion


But i can think of problematic counter examples for all of those.

[Broomstick]

Points 1 and 3 are not signs of integration, they are signs of immigration. While there is a loose connection between the two they are not the same thing and integration does not necessarily follow immigration.+

6 is conversion, which might be part of integration but is not required.

2, 3, and 5 would be indications of it, but I don't think any of them are required.

I think you have to better define what you mean by "integration".

I would say things like comfort with the common language regardless of what you may or may not speak at home and adoption of secular customs common to the mainstream but there is a lot of room for discussion here and the particulars might well vary from one country to another.

[AniThyng]

Using SEA Chinese as an example...

Thai Chinese : past integration to assimilation
Malaysian Chinese : integrated, but debatable, arguably the country has moved in reverse on that front.i think this is where I'd consider the closest analogy to a people that refuse assimilation and integrate only on specific areas
Singaporean Chinese: the question is not what culture do Singaporean Chinese integrate into, it's who integrates into Singaporean Chinese culture.

[AniThyng]

Multi ethnic States are *hard*, harder still when you throw in additional culture and religious differences into the mix. Is Belgium an integrated society?

[Elheru Aran]

Multi ethnic States are *hard*, harder still when you throw in additional culture and religious differences into the mix. Is Belgium an integrated society?

Never mind the United States, probably the ur-example of multi-ethnic states. We've got people from pretty much -everywhere-. Thai, Vietnamese, Indian, Somali, Nigerian, all the different flavors of Hispanic, and that's just the tip of the iceberg...

Honestly it really depends a lot on how you're going to define 'integration', as Broomy said. Here in the States (in my limited experience) integration seems to be mostly a matter of how well you know the language and are a part of the local community. So Indians in Atlanta, with enclaves of Indian stores and restaurants across parts of town, are pretty well integrated, while someone just arrived from say Afghanistan might not be integrated very well until they've got a grasp of the language and have gotten to know some people.

[The Romulan Republic]

Multi ethnic States are *hard*, harder still when you throw in additional culture and religious differences into the mix. Is Belgium an integrated society?

Never mind the United States, probably the ur-example of multi-ethnic states. We've got people from pretty much -everywhere-. Thai, Vietnamese, Indian, Somali, Nigerian, all the different flavors of Hispanic, and that's just the tip of the iceberg...

Honestly it really depends a lot on how you're going to define 'integration', as Broomy said. Here in the States (in my limited experience) integration seems to be mostly a matter of how well you know the language and are a part of the local community. So Indians in Atlanta, with enclaves of Indian stores and restaurants across parts of town, are pretty well integrated, while someone just arrived from say Afghanistan might not be integrated very well until they've got a grasp of the language and have gotten to know some people.

I strongly support multi-ethnic states, both because I believe that an exchange of ideas between different cultures is natural and stimulates the growth of a society, and because the only way to keep an ethnically separate state in a globalized world is through force or disenfranchisement of ethnic groups, which means authoritarianism and the destruction of innocents.

That said, it is certainly difficult. Most worthwhile things are, but taking the US as an example, it took us two centuries of struggle and a civil war to get to where we are today (imperfect as it is), and it may yet take another civil war to maintain it.

[Elheru Aran]

Multi ethnic States are *hard*, harder still when you throw in additional culture and religious differences into the mix. Is Belgium an integrated society?

Never mind the United States, probably the ur-example of multi-ethnic states. We've got people from pretty much -everywhere-. Thai, Vietnamese, Indian, Somali, Nigerian, all the different flavors of Hispanic, and that's just the tip of the iceberg...

Honestly it really depends a lot on how you're going to define 'integration', as Broomy said. Here in the States (in my limited experience) integration seems to be mostly a matter of how well you know the language and are a part of the local community. So Indians in Atlanta, with enclaves of Indian stores and restaurants across parts of town, are pretty well integrated, while someone just arrived from say Afghanistan might not be integrated very well until they've got a grasp of the language and have gotten to know some people.

I strongly support multi-ethnic states, both because I believe that an exchange of ideas between different cultures is natural and stimulates the growth of a society, and because the only way to keep an ethnically separate state in a globalized world is through force or disenfranchisement of ethnic groups, which means authoritarianism and the destruction of innocents.

That said, it is certainly difficult. Most worthwhile things are, but taking the US as an example, it took us two centuries of struggle and a civil war to get to where we are today (imperfect as it is), and it may yet take another civil war to maintain it.

It does matter quite a great deal what one means by 'integration', yeah. If you simply mean 'accepted as part of the country and/or fellow citizens', that's probably the most inclusive definition. But if you nuance it by adding something like 'speaks the predominant language fluently' or 'becomes a citizen', that would exclude a fair number of, for example, first-generation immigrants.

The honest fact of the matter is that becoming part of a new place is difficult for people. Some never quite manage it. Some embrace the change wholeheartedly. But the interesting thing is it's not just up to those who move; it's also up to those around them at their new place of residence. Xenophobia won't help the situation. Neither would forced assimilation or less obvious forms of ethnic cleansing such as making no concession for any language other than the official national tongue.

[Broomstick]

I think integration has to mean "regarded as fellow citizens and social equals" - something the US does imperfectly. In general, in the US no one cares what language you speak at home but some facility with American English is required to be seen as a citizen, there is no official religion (although the many flavors of Christianity predominate, in some areas nearly exclusively so) and a multitude of faiths existing next to each other, cuisines from all over the world are not just tolerated but embraced enthusiastically, different forms of attire are considered acceptable in public besides just the mainstream, and different customs are often met with curiosity or perhaps a bit of puzzlement rather than hostility. The ideal is more clearly realized in dense urban areas rather than in more rural areas, but "integration" in the US is seen adopting certain secular conventions and customs rather than assimilating by giving up a past culture for the current one. Tolerance is held up as an ideal, even if actual practice is far from perfect. As a very general rule, the US doesn't require that immigrants give up that much to be considered full members of society. This doesn't always go smoothly, but it's part of the culture mythos to be a "melting pot".

Other nations want immigrants to conform much more closely to the mainstream, including restricting what parents can name their children, restricting public expressions of faith, and so on. For someone from such a nation the term "integration" has a meaning closer to what Americans would call "assimilation", with a (to American sensibilities) a faint undertone of Star Trek's Borg (nevermind how US cultural exports might be viewed elsewhere).

[Elheru Aran]

I think integration has to mean "regarded as fellow citizens and social equals" - something the US does imperfectly. In general, in the US no one cares what language you speak at home but some facility with American English is required to be seen as a citizen, there is no official religion (although the many flavors of Christianity predominate, in some areas nearly exclusively so) and a multitude of faiths existing next to each other, cuisines from all over the world are not just tolerated but embraced enthusiastically, different forms of attire are considered acceptable in public besides just the mainstream, and different customs are often met with curiosity or perhaps a bit of puzzlement rather than hostility. The ideal is more clearly realized in dense urban areas rather than in more rural areas, but "integration" in the US is seen adopting certain secular conventions and customs rather than assimilating by giving up a past culture for the current one. Tolerance is held up as an ideal, even if actual practice is far from perfect. As a very general rule, the US doesn't require that immigrants give up that much to be considered full members of society. This doesn't always go smoothly, but it's part of the culture mythos to be a "melting pot".

^This is very good and pretty much concur with all of it. As long as you are a more or less contributing member of society (i.e., have a job and speak English), you're pretty much in in most parts of the US. Note that one frequent complaint banded about regarding Hispanics (currently, I think, the main scapegoat when it comes to immigration in the US) is that they draw a lot of welfare or are a 'burden' to taxpayers (never mind that most of them have jobs and actually pay taxes even if they aren't legal immigrants)... that says a lot about how people are perceived here.

[K. A. Pital]

Integration means having a network of relationships in a society that is typical for its other members.

Segregation / self-segregation means you are not able to build a network of relationships outside the immediate contacts you have as fellow immigrants or, perhaps later, inside your immigrant diaspora. Reasons could be oppression on part of the dominant nationality, self-enforced isolation, territorial isolation, social exclusion by elaborate ruling class measures... all sorts of things.

Assimilation means abandoning your own culture and its key aspects, and becoming aligned or fully accepting the host society culture. In its ultimate form it manifests as xenopatriotism - yesterday's immigrants feverishly pledging allegiance to the flag and saying how they'll DIE for MURRICA and how IT IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD, is a good example of such.

[madd0ct0r]

This is all really interesting. I am not sure why i assumed all countries had the same ideal for integration.

Another point ive had suggested in discussion is that the uk is a relatively old fractured culture, with maybe fifty different groups all of whom value different things.
So for someone to be "integrated" in the eyes of all, they need to satisfy fifty different value demands which in practical terms equates to assimilation. The much simpler "pledge allegiance to the flag" thing america has is more feasible

[The Romulan Republic]

Well actually, its a bit more complicated than that in America too. America has a lot of idiosyncratic cultural traditions. You also get assholes who make a big deal out of knowing/speaking English to be integrated. Usually its a thin cover for "we don't want Mexicans here", but they kind of have a point in that while lots of languages are spoken in the US, English is by far the dominant one, and probably the only one that is commonly spoken across the entire country (maybe Spanish is getting up there, particularly in the South West).

Its complicated by the fact that America massively exports its culture to the rest of the world. American movies are watched and American music listened to pretty much everywhere human beings have set foot, for example. So people from completely different parts of the world will be partly assimilated into American culture.

[AniThyng]

On the topic of language, its worth noting that in countries like India and Malaysia, there is often also a complicated relationship between English, the national Lingua Franca ( Hindi and Malay) and individual ethnic/regional languages (e.g. Tamil, mandarin, etc.). Malaysia in particular has yet to really come up with a solution that pleases everyone, what with parallel language streams in schools and even reluctance in some circles to use Malay unless absolutely necessary. In that sense English is very useful what with it being a neutral third language whose main baggage is being that of the former colonial masters or that of the US and its own cultural imperialism.

[Elheru Aran]

On the topic of language, its worth noting that in countries like India and Malaysia, there is often also a complicated relationship between English, the national Lingua Franca ( Hindi and Malay) and individual ethnic/regional languages (e.g. Tamil, mandarin, etc.). Malaysia in particular has yet to really come up with a solution that pleases everyone, what with parallel language streams in schools and even reluctance in some circles to use Malay unless absolutely necessary. In that sense English is very useful what with it being a neutral third language whose main baggage is being that of the former colonial masters or that of the US and its own cultural imperialism.

Same situation in Nigeria. It's even worse there with three lingua franca (Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo) and over 500ish regional languages. English pretty much became the national language out of dire necessity. I'm certain you would see the same across the world with various former colonial possessions, the only variance being whether the language of choice was French or English. Spanish kinda-sorta qualifies in Latin America, but many of those countries have been independent long enough to build a more unified national identity and merge the tribal barriers between different groups. The Philippines are an interesting situation in that they simply transferred colonial masters towards the end of the 19th century, so (my understanding is) Tagalog has both Spanish and English loan-words. There are some German influences as well but much less so I think given that IIRC all the German colonies were taken over by either the French or English post-WWI.