Intercultural relations in plural societies

Canadian Psychology, Feb 1999 by Berry, JW

This presentation was based on the assumption that non-dominant groups and their individual members have the freedom to choose how they want to acculturate. This, of course, is not always the case. When the dominant group enforces certain forms of acculturation, or constrains the choices of non-dominant groups or individuals, then other terms need to be used (see below). For example, Integration can only be "freely" chosen and successfully pursued by non-dominant groups when the dominant society is open and inclusive in its orientation towards cultural diversity (Berry, 1991). Thus a mutual accommodation is required for Integration to be attained, involving the acceptance by both dominant and non-dominant groups of the fight of all groups to live as culturally different peoples. This strategy requires non-dominant groups to adopt the basic values of the larger society, while at the same time the dominant group must be prepared to adapt national institutions (e.g., education, health, labour) to better meet the needs of all groups now living together in the plural society. Just as obviously, Integration (and Separation) can only be pursued when other members of one's ethnocultural group share in the wish to maintain the group's cultural heritage. In this sense, these two strategies are "collective," whereas assimilation is more "individualistic" (Moghaddam, 1988).

These two basic issues were phrased above from the point of view of the non-dominant ethnocultural groups only. However, the original anthropological definition of acculturation clearly established that both groups in contact would become acculturated. Hence, a third dimension is necessary: that of the role played by the dominant group in influencing the way in which mutual acculturation would take place (Berry, 1974). The addition of this third dimension produced an eight-fold framework. For example, Assimilation when sought by the acculturating group was termed the "Melting Pot," but when demanded by the dominant group, it was called the "Pressure cooker"; when Separation was desired by the acculturating group it was termed "Rejection," but when forced by the dominant group it was "Segregation" (as shown in Figure 2).

A further issue is the level at which these various views are held (see Figure 3). This Figure shows three levels at which intercultural orientations can be sought in both the dominant and non-dominant groups. At the first level, we can examine national policies and the stated goals of particular groups within the plural society. For example, the Canadian policy of Multiculturalism corresponds to the Integration strategy (Berry, 1984). At the individual level, we can measure the general multicultural ideology in the dominant population or the attitudes that individuals hold toward these four strategies of intercultural relations. At the institutional level, competing visions rooted in these alternative intercultural strategies confront and even conflict with each other daily. Most frequently, nondominant cultural groups seek the joint goals of diversity and equity. This involves, first, the recognition of the group's cultural uniqueness and specific needs, and second, having their group be met with the same level of understanding and support as those of the dominant groups(s). The dominant society, however, may often prefer more uniform programs and standards (based on their own cultural views) in such core institutions as education, health, justice, and defense. The goals of diversity and equity correspond closely to the Integration strategy (combining cultural maintenance with inclusive participation), whereas the push for uniformity resembles the Assimilation approach (see Berry, 1996).