Acculturation, Integration, and Assimilation: What Is the Difference?

When people move to another country, they encounter a different language, customs, social rules and ways of life. This encounter can change not only the people who arrive but also the community that receives them.

In public debate, the terms acculturation, integration, and assimilation are sometimes used as though they meant the same thing. Yet each describes a different aspect of the relationship between individuals, their culture of origin and their new social environment.

This distinction is more than a matter of terminology. If integration is equated with assimilation, we may wrongly conclude that a person is accepted by society only after abandoning the language, customs or identity associated with their background. Conversely, if cultural difference is taken as evidence that integration has failed, we overlook the fact that people can participate in a shared society without becoming culturally identical.

In psychology and migration research, acculturation is therefore understood as a process that can lead to different outcomes depending on personal experience, social relationships and the conditions in which it takes place (Berry, 1997; Sam & Berry, 2010).

Acculturation is the process of cultural and psychological change that occurs when people or groups from different cultural backgrounds come into sustained contact. Changes may involve language, everyday habits, values, relationships and the way people understand their own identity.

For example, someone who moves from Croatia to Japan may begin learning Japanese, adopt certain social customs and change how they communicate in a professional setting. At the same time, they may continue speaking Croatian with family, maintain friendships in Croatia and practise customs that remain important to them.

Acculturation does not automatically mean abandoning one’s culture of origin. It is a broader process within which different relationships to the culture of origin and the culture of the receiving society may develop.

These changes are not necessarily one-way. Cultural encounters can affect the everyday lives of newcomers as well as the institutions, workplaces and communities that receive them. This does not mean that both sides experience equal change or have equal social power. Acculturation takes place under specific conditions that may involve cooperation, inequality, discrimination or different forms of institutional support (Sam & Berry, 2010).

Canadian psychologist John W. Berry developed one of the best-known theoretical frameworks for understanding acculturation. The model starts with two questions:

• How important is it to the person to maintain their culture of origin, identity and customs?
• How important is it to the person to participate in the wider community and build relationships with people from other cultural groups?

By combining these two dimensions, Berry (1997) describes four acculturation strategies.

Integration involves seeking to maintain important elements of one’s culture of origin while also participating in the society in which one lives.

Assimilation refers to an orientation towards the culture of the receiving society, accompanied by a weakening or abandonment of practices associated with the culture of origin.

Separation refers to maintaining the culture of origin while limiting participation in the wider community or contact with its members.

Marginalisation describes weak ties both to the culture of origin and to the receiving society. This situation may occur in contexts of exclusion or discrimination, but it should not automatically be interpreted as an individual’s deliberate choice.

These categories are useful for understanding possible patterns of adaptation, but they are not fixed labels by which people can be neatly classified. The same person may participate actively in social life, retain a family language, change some customs and relate differently to their identity at different stages of life.

The model also does not imply that everyone has the same freedom to choose how to adapt. The ability to maintain a cultural identity while participating in society also depends on whether barriers, discrimination and institutional restrictions are present (Berry, 1997; Schwartz et al., 2010).

In Berry’s model, integration involves maintaining the culture of origin while participating in the new society. In a broader social sense, integration also includes access to education, employment, housing, healthcare, rights and social relationships.

Imagine a family that has moved from Italy to another country. The family members learn the language of their new environment, work, send their children to school and take part in local community life. At home, however, they continue to speak Italian, maintain family customs and keep in touch with relatives in their country of origin.

Such a family does not have to choose between its cultural roots and participation in society. Its members can develop a sense of belonging in their new environment without ceasing to regard their background as an important part of their identity.

Integration, however, is not simply the result of personal motivation. Ager and Strang (2008) identify several interconnected areas relevant to integration, including employment, housing, education, health, rights and social connections. This points to an important distinction: people may be expected to learn the language and respect the law, but their actual participation also depends on whether they can access education and work, enjoy legal security and avoid discrimination.

Integration is therefore not the same as complete cultural sameness. People can share the rules of social life, participate in institutions and fulfil responsibilities while retaining different languages, customs and forms of cultural expression.

Assimilation describes a process in which a person increasingly adopts the patterns of the receiving society, while features of the culture of origin gradually diminish or cease to play an important role in their life.

One example might be a person whose family migrated several generations ago. They speak the language of the country in which they grew up, participate in its social life and no longer regard the language or customs of their ancestors as an important part of their identity.

This process can unfold over one or more generations. It may be associated with personal choices, changes in family life and everyday relationships. It can also be driven by social pressure, for example when a person concludes that they must abandon their language or customs in order to be accepted.

It is important to distinguish assimilation from assimilationism. Assimilation describes a process of cultural change in an individual or group. Assimilationism is a social or political approach that expects or requires minority groups to abandon their cultural distinctiveness and adopt the patterns of the majority society.

This distinction helps us separate personal choice from pressure that restricts the possibility of maintaining a cultural identity. The fact that someone no longer practises the customs of their ancestors does not, by itself, tell us whether this is a free choice, a result of changing circumstances or a consequence of social pressure.

A common assumption is that people from culturally similar backgrounds will integrate more easily than those from backgrounds perceived as more culturally distant. Similarities in language, customs or everyday practices may indeed make some aspects of adaptation easier. However, they do not allow us to conclude automatically that a person will be accepted or successfully integrated.

Cultural background alone tells us too little about a person’s values, abilities, experiences or willingness to participate in society. Within every country and cultural community, people differ according to generation, education, family environment, personal experience and individual beliefs.

For example, people from the same country may hold very different views on gender equality, religion, LGBT people or the rights of people with disabilities. Such views cannot be reliably predicted from national or religious background alone.

This does not mean cultural differences should be ignored. Different social norms can raise genuine questions and require dialogue, negotiation or clear shared rules. Respect for cultural diversity does not mean accepting discrimination or restrictions on fundamental rights. Equally, protecting human rights does not require everyone to have the same language, customs or private way of life.

To understand integration, it is therefore more useful to consider actual behaviour, available opportunities and social conditions than to draw conclusions in advance based on a person’s background. Integration takes shape through the relationship between individuals, communities and institutions, not merely through the cultural distance between two environments.

Distinguishing between acculturation, integration, and assimilation allows for a more precise discussion of migration. Acculturation refers to the broader process of cultural and psychological change; integration describes maintaining aspects of one’s identity while participating in a new society; and assimilation refers to an orientation towards the culture of the receiving society alongside a weakening of features associated with the culture of origin.

These processes do not unfold in the same way for everyone, nor are they independent of social circumstances. Language, education, employment, legal security, social relationships and experiences of discrimination can all affect a person’s opportunities to participate in the community.

The question of integration is therefore not simply how much a migrant has changed. It is equally important to ask what opportunities society provides, how institutions treat different groups and whether people can participate in shared life without having to erase every aspect of their background.

A final thought

Integration does not require us all to become the same. It requires that we can participate in a shared society, respect its rules and still retain our own background.

Note

This article is intended for informational and educational purposes. The concepts and theoretical models presented here are intended to support understanding of acculturation and integration; they cannot, on their own, explain the experience of every individual or migrant community.

Sources

Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2008). Understanding integration: A conceptual framework. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(2), 166–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrs/fen016

Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x

Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (2010). Acculturation: When individuals and groups of different cultural backgrounds meet. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 472–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610373075

Schwartz, S. J., Unger, J. B., Zamboanga, B. L., & Szapocznik, J. (2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation: Implications for theory and research. American Psychologist, 65(4), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019330