1.1 Strategies and processes of adaptation in immigration  (Page 9/11)

Milton M. Gordon had warned in the 1960s, with regard to “conceptual ideologies or models” about the formation of the “American town,” that such models had served at different moments, sometimes with several of them being employed at the same time. These attempted to serve as explanations of what happened, or descriptive models. Goal models meant to explain what has to happen or what it was desired to happen (Gordon, 1978, p. 181).

Carlos Giménez Romero has demanded the necessity to distinguish, conceptually and linguistically, the “factual” level (as in: multiculturality = cultural diversity, linguistic, religious, etc., or interculturality = interethnic relations, interlinguistics, interreligious, etc.) and the “normative” level; or of the sociopolitical and ethical proposals (as in: cultural pluralism, multiculturalism, interculturalism, etc.). Based on this distinction, it establishes an interesting typology of “sociopolitical models for cultural diversity” (Gimenez Romero, 2003, pp.9-26).

Another interesting contribution is that of the investigation group Algarabia (University of Almeria) that has elaborated a theoretical model of acculturation, based on the concept of psychological acculturation of J. W. Berry (1984, pp. 353-370), which considers Gordon’s model as one-dimensional and linear. This model proposes to independently consider and measure the immigrants’ attitudes toward their own identity and cultural heritage, at least to what extent they wish to preserve it. In contrast this model examines their attitudes toward the welcoming culture, considering to what extent they wish to adopt it as their own. Conjugating the answers to these two dimensions (to preserve/to adopt), it establishes a picture of four acculturation strategies: assimilation, integration, segregation, or marginalization. The Algarabia group introduces some modifications by emphasizing the dialectic character of the acculturation strategies; those of the collective immigrant cannot be isolated from those of the native population. The necessity to establish differences according to the ethnic-cultural origin of the immigrants, the convenience of differentiating the ideal versus the real level, as well as the hypothesis that individuals and groups do not adopt a particular strategy of acculturation, rather, many are based on different factors and socio-cultural scopes; e.g. work relations, family relations, religious beliefs, and customs, is a proposal of an “extended model of relative acculturation” (MAAR). See SÁNCHEZ MIRANDA, J.: “Estrategias de adaptación en una sociedad plural”, en Corintios XIII . Nºs 103-104 (2002) 159-226.

This model, as is indicated in the title of Sanchez Miranda’s (2002, pp. 159-226) article, brings us to the concept of “adaptation,” precisely the one Juan Luis Recio and myself used for our respective investigations, defining it as:

A functional ability to perform new and redefined universal and particularistic roles in various environments of the receiving society in such a way that is productive of a certain level of individual and family satisfaction which often results in a decision to stay (Adrados, 1975, p. 376).