Page 41 - IJPS-7-2

International Journal of
Population Studies Objective and subjective assimilation of migrants

account. Thus, the central question becomes: is assimilation Reis, 1998). They may feel that they are similar to the local
objective or subjective? residents with whom they interact and, thus, may want to
have a bond with them. However, they may not feel the
1.1.3. Subjective versus objective assimilation same if they compare themselves with another group of

Before analyzing whether assimilation is subjective or residents from different classes with whom they hardly
objective, it is important to clarify that, here, the terms interact. Kasnitz et al. (2009) argued that migrants would
“subjective” and “objective” differ from what scholars have different feelings compared to different groups. In this
classified as “subjective assimilation” and “external case, the sense of belonging may not be built up. Based on
assimilation” (Feather & Rudzitis, 1974; Feather & Gordon’s theory of multidimensional assimilation, these
Wasyluk, 1974; Johnston, 1963; Teske & Nelson, 1974). feelings of belonging can be part of the identificational
They defined “subjective assimilation” as similar to assimilation stage (Gordon, 1964), so how they feel
acculturation or assimilation in values and attitudes, while about assimilation will affect their assimilation. In fact, as
external assimilation is assimilation that can be observed. Schachter (2016) argues, assimilation is a process in which
The key difference is that their definitions of “subjective” what he called symbolic belonging – developing a subjective
and “objective” do not depend on whether assimilation sense of social similarity with one another – is part of the
is observable or not, or whether it is internal or external. outcome. This argument is also further supported by the
Instead, it focuses on the distinct roles that migrants play in idea that assimilation includes a subjective component
their own assimilation process. If it is a subjective process, based on identification with members of the host group
then assimilation will depend on who the migrants want (Frazier, 1957). In this case, which host group, they choose
to become similar to. If it is an objective process, then will affect their identification process and thus affect their
assimilation will not depend on the migrants’ choice of assimilation.
reference group. Two arguments also support assimilation as an
However, assimilation is a mixture of both subjective objective process. The first posits that while migration is
and objective processes. Two main arguments support intentional, assimilation may not be. Both acculturation
assimilation as a subjective process. The first argument and assimilation can be unintentional outcomes (Alba,
is that migration itself is almost always intentional, with 1999; Gans, 2007). When economic assimilation happens
upward social mobility as the most common motivation. consciously with the goal of higher social mobility, cultural
With US immigration, for instance, most migrants come assimilation usually happens unconsciously through
with the hope of realizing the American Dream, while interactions (for the first generation) and education (for
others come after seeing the success of their family members the second and later generations) (Gordon, 1964). Thus,
or friends who migrate earlier (Bates, 1997; Clark, 2003; a part of the assimilation can be entirely independent of
Haug, 2008; Light & Bonacich, 1991). Those who come with whatever migrants do, think, and feel. There is a part of
the American Dream may look to middle-class residents as assimilation that occurs without subjective willingness.
their reference group. However, those who come with the In the second argument, assimilation can be an objective
help of migrant social networks may take earlier migrants phenomenon. Even if the process is subjective, part of
from the same origin as their reference group. In either the outcome can always be objective, making it possible
case, they will have a reference group for themselves, to observe the phenomenon that migrants are becoming
which will serve as their target for assimilation. Essentially, more similar to destination residents.
migrants can aspire to their reference group and will try Although assimilation has an objective component, it is
to be more like them, as suggested by the reference group misleading and incomplete to rely on selecting the migrant
theory (Merton, 1968). Thus, their assimilation will be reference group solely from the scholars’ perspective.
affected by their own choice of reference group. This point For example, scholars may observe that migrants are
has also been tested empirically. In particular, compared becoming more similar to Group A, but the migrants may
with mainstream local residents, migrants aspire to a pick Group B as their reference group for assimilation and
higher degree of assimilation and achieve it by working become more similar to Group B, which happens to be
longer (Chen, 2021). similar to Group A. As a result, it may not be fully accurate
The second argument is that how migrants think and to argue that migrants are assimilating into Group A. In this
feel about their assimilation will affect their feelings of example, assimilation into A is objective assimilation (i.e.,
belonging, which later affects their assimilation. People’s assimilation that scholars observe), while assimilation to B
sense of belonging is highly determined by group is subjective assimilation (i.e., assimilation that migrants
memberships, which are formed by similarity (Bersheid & aim to realize). The potential consequences of omitting

Volume 7 Issue 2 (2021) 35 https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.v7i2.346