Intercultural relations:
Assimilation or Integration
presented by
Mevlüt TOK
 The demand for individuals who can
effectively manage and harness
complex cultural diversity is growing
rapidly. The world becomes
increasingly smaller, and each region
more multicultural. Success will come
only to those professionals. They have
the skills and understanding to
respond appropriately to the
challenges of working across cultures
in both national and international
organizations.
 The concepts of assimilation or
assimilating are used to describe the
process by which a group’s cultural
distinctive character disappears or is
abandoned when faced with the
majority society. Unlike integration,
where the individual character of
various groups is not regarded as an
obstacle to entering social life,
assimilation is forced by way of tough
demands concerning adaptation to the
predominant norms of social
behaviour.
 Another difference between these
concepts is that assimilation principally
refers to behavioural, linguistic and
religious changes, whilst integration is
about social, economic and political
conditions for different groups. In
other words, the concept of
assimilation describes identity
changes, whilst the concept of
'integration' is a concept for societal
change.
 Assimilation can be a result of either
individual choices or imposed by political
decisions aimed at cultural, linguistic or
religious conformity. In the latter case,
assimilation is enforced by political decisions
and social norms that allow very little room
for variations or deviations in these areas.
Even the kind of assimilation that is a result
of individual decisions should be seen in
relation to the majority society’s direct
and/or indirect demands for adaptation and
conformity.
 Assimilation or integration?
Many researchers have pointed
out a number of problems
associated with the concept of
assimilation. One problem is that
the difference between integration
and assimilation is not always
clear. Behind the integration
rhetoric, this can, for instance,
result in tacit demands or
expectations for assimilation.
 It is not unusual, for example, that
difficulties with integration or the
degree of integration are defined
based on how much the minority
group deviates from the majority.
In such cases, there is an implicit
assumption that the behavioural
forms of the majority of the
population are the standard for a
successful integration.
 Assimilation and inequality
With demands for conformity
containing more behaviours than
social, political and economical
resources, it can be said that
assimilation is more an expression
of social and political control than
a striving for equality.
 Thus, linguistic, religious and
behavioural assimilation is
compatible with segregated living
or working conditions. A
consequence of this is that, even
if assimilation can lead to
distinctive cultural traits being
eradicated, the social, political and
economic inequality between the
various societal groups remains.
 The preferential right of
interpretation and power
The preferential right of interpretation,
i.e. the power to define and interpret
reality, is a central aspect when it
comes to naming and describing social
relationships. This applies particularly
to relationships that entail an unequal
distribution of power, like that existing
between different sections of the
population.
 Some studies have shown that behind the
thinking of assimilation there is a notion of
meetings between homogeneous and
invariable cultures, where the one group,
often the majority culture, has the power
and the opportunities to dictate the
conditions for the minority groups. This idea
often provides the breeding ground for
cultural explanations (that social phenomena
are founded upon an uncomplicated view of
the concept of culture) for segregation and
social inequality.
 Social integration is a term used
in sociology and several other social
sciences. The term indicates different
meanings depending in the context. In
general, it connotes the process of
combining a group of persons like
minority groups, ethnic minorities,
refugees, underprivileged sections of
the society, to integrate into the
mainstream of the society, and thus to
avail of the opportunities, rights and
services available to the members of
the mainstream of the society.
I'm ready to integrate.
But
Are you ready to accept
me?
 Firstly, integration needs a comprehensive
definition. It needs all stakeholders to agree
on a set of common values. In my view,
integration could be defined as "the bringing
of people of different racial, ethnic or
religious groups into unrestricted and equal
association, as in society and its
institutions". Integration could also mean a
process of desegregation, ie. dismantling of
ghettos and removing barriers. Integration is
the total opposite to disengagement.
 Secondly, when I explain that we
encourages integration, I ask you not
to confuse it with assimilation. we
would be opposed to any notion of
assimilation. Integration is not about
socially engineering a new generation
based on no distinct faith, ethnic or
cultural identity. This is precisely what
assimilation would do. We propose
people to become loyal to their faith
but their cultural or ethnic differences
a reason for greater interaction and
celebration.
 Thirdly, integration it is not a one-way
street. Minority communities do not
have a moral obligation to integrate
into the majority community. Such a
suggestion assumes the majority
communities’ values, lifestyle, cultures
and customs are superior. This is
simply an arrogant supposition.
Integration must have an element of
give and take and willingness to
share.
 Integration is not the end but simply a
process where people of all
background come together to make
connections and develop shared values
mutually. The outcome is a cohesive
and integrated society. Integration is
like a watch. A watch has small
components inside; each component
by itself can not be called a watch,
although they may function
individually. However when all the
components are arranged in an orderly
fashion the watch works perfectly.
 All cultures, faiths, traditions and
customs together would form an
integrated society. If we take the
example of the watch, every
component is vital; similarly every
stakeholder in such an integrated
society would be a crucial partner.
It must be a relationship based on
proportionality and most certainly
on equal worth and respect.
 There are many challenges we
need to overcome. When we are
developing common values the
biggest and most pressing
question is how to resolve the
problems of cultural norms and
values that are at polar ends.
 There are several examples I can
mention that would make developing
shared values very difficult. Such as,
for one, the fact that European
society’s social life is based around
drinking alcohol while it is totally
forbidden for a Muslim to drink. This
means Muslims are not able to
socialise with the non-Muslim
communities fully where drinking
alcohol is so prevalent. Would that
prevent us from developing common
values?
 Let us take another example. The
interaction between men and women
in Islam is substantially different.
While in this country physical contact
between the sexes is normal in Islam
there are restrictions. In today’s
Europe sex outside marriage has
become a cultural norm while in Islam
sex outside a marital relationship is
not allowed.
 Despite some of these intrinsic differences I
am, along with majority of the Muslim
citizens of this country, willing to integrate
fully but are you willing to accept us fully?
My definition of integration is to retain my
identity and values and you retain yours but
we agree to interact on civic duties as equal
partners, we work for the well being of our
country and all the citizens. We run our
affairs in a democratic, pluralistic and
transparent manner. The aim would be to
create a society in which we have
unrestricted and equal association.
 Cultural Pluralism
In our increasingly diverse societies, it is
essential that persons and groups having
plural, varied and dynamic cultural identities
should live together in harmonious
interaction and proper accord. Policies that
seek the integration and participation of all
citizens are an earnest of social cohesion,
vitality of civil society and peace. Defined in
this way, cultural pluralism is the policy
offshoot of cultural diversity. Since it is
inseparable from a democratic context,
cultural pluralism is conducive to cultural
exchange and the flowering of the creative
potential that sustains life in society.
Turkey wants
integration,
not assimilation
 We strongly support integration of
Turks living in the countries in which
they live, yet we’re not pleased with
the idea of having those individuals
assimilate in those countries in Europe.
 Ankara has been encouraging Turkish
people residing in other countries to
contribute in social, economic, political
and cultural fields in their
communities.
 Integration and immigration laws
adopted recently and discriminative
policies and escalating xenophobia in
some countries are closely connected
to the daily lives of our citizens. I
believe that these are also extremely
important developments. Turks in
Germany should learn German but not
give up their Turkish identity.
Assimilation is a
"crime against humanity."
 Our language policy is extremely
clear. Our citizens who live abroad
first of all should teach second
and third generations to speak
Turkish well. It is not easy for a
child to be successful if he doesn't
speak his mother tongue well in
the country where he resides.
Protection of our cultural values -values which make us -- is also
extremely important.

……
"We want good integration
of our citizens living in
Europe…Good integration
is the fundamental
principle here. But we are
not willing to have them be
assimilated as well.“
……
.....
.....
.
……
……
.....
.....
.