INTEGRATION IS A TWO-WAY PROCESS

Integration Is a Two-Way Process

[Name of the Institute]

Integration Is a Two-Way Process

Introduction

Integration theory finds its roots in anthropology. Historically, adaptation research championed increased participation in the host society coupled with detachment from the culture of origin. However, Berry (1997) challenged this traditional approach in his work on immigrants where he delineated four acculturation types: separation, marginalization, assimilation and integration. With separation and marginalization, immigrants find themselves on the outskirts of society, either under their own volition (separation) or due to policy of the host society and reaction of its citizens (marginalization). Assimilation requires a rejection of one's culture of origin, thus adding additional stress and hindering the process of settlement. However, integration finds balance in everyday life between one's culture of origin and t he culture of the settlement country (Wan, 2011, Pp. 23). Berry describes how these four acculturation types can be utilized in policy formation in multicultural societies.

Discussion and analysis

Current literature recognizes the difficulty in def ining refugee success and how it can be measured. The term “success” is often found as a qualifier for integration - successful integration. Integration is a complex concept; there are many facets to explore t o gain a complete understanding. Present discourse concerning refugee experiences offers several lenses through which to view and define refugee integration. Some of these lenses include:

• Social Citizenship

• Social Inclusion versus Social Exclusion

Bridging and Bonding Social Capital

Relative to resettlement, integration is social, economic, and cultural participation in the host country while concurrently maintaining ties to the country of origin.

Successful integration, however, is not a simple concept that fits neatly into each of these three categories; ideas exist of what integration should look like that may not exist in reality. Hagelund (2005) exp ands on this concept, describing integration as “no doubt a slippery notion, incorporating and appealing, but diffuse, functionalist image of the harmonious coexistence of social inclusion and cultural diversity within nation-state boundaries”. It is important to note here the emphasis on integration as opposed to assimilation. Assimilation advocates the rejection of the culture of origin, which is not part of the proposal for successful refugee resettlement presented here.

In addition to recognizing the existing body of research, it is important to comprehend how the UNHCR portrays integration in order to understand the context from which resettlement policy originates. As the primary player to facilitate refugee resettlement, the principles set forth by this organization inform policy in each country that participates in refugee resettlement as countries look to the UNHCR for guidance (Young, 2004, Pp. 39).

The UNHCR describes integration as “mutual, dynamic, multi-faceted and on-going”. Refugee and host society's perspectives both factor into successful integration: From a refugee perspective, integration requires a preparedness to adapt to the lifestyle of the host society without having to lose one's own cultural identity. From the point of view of the host society, it requires willingness from communities to be welcoming and responsive to refugees and for public institutions to ...