[noemon]

Let's talk about culture & assimilation.

For a person to assimilate into a foreign culture that culture needs to be alluring and empowering.

Let's analyse these 2 words please, alluring & empowering.

Alluring: It needs to have strong and powerful symbols, Greece for example has its history and who would not want to be associated with Alexander, Plato, Justinian, Constantine, many European countries have equally powerful symbols that they can point and which foreigners can freely associate with, but is that enough allure? in some cases it could be, but as a general rule I would think not, culture needs to be alluring in the present practical sense as well, for example who wouldn't want to dance with the natives in say for example in an Austrian Hall, wearing his wig and showing off his skills, or in a Greek island to be hugged by the tribe and show off one's swag to the village beauty, or in a Spanish tango session?

Today the only dance the west dances, is Rn'B and Rave, when I joined the rave scene it was a jump from my humble Greco-origins to the pit of Euro-trash and such a jump was conscious, it was not just the about the music but about the participation in the modern & novel, away from the boring folk, a couple of years later I got bored of it though and returned back to the embrace & warmth of my own.

Back when I was at school, we had to dance every year 4 times a year, we had to participate in military parades twice a year right up until graduation. Greek pupils still do all that and I am not that old, but I cannot help myself and compare with my own children in the UK, who only do a Christian theatrical production once a year and that is probably because they attend a Catholic school, what kind of event do modern-day pupils have to look forward to as a rite of passage and that does not just go to the natives but to the foreign kids as well?

Was it different in the past? These events however backwards they might look to some, to children they have an allure and a powerful one at that.

Next is the empowering stage, to be empowered you need to have something to look forward to for example inclusion in a network, a gang at school, a tribe at the village, a union at work, the PoFo elite or whatever.

These are just some thoughts, I am terrible at writing when I am not replying(reacting), please add your thoughts.

[anasawad]

Assimilation into a culture is usually a very long process if it was 2 entirely different cultures and in most cases, the person become to have a normalization of some aspects, but never really fully assimilate into that new culture since most people in the modern world do belong into a native cultural group that many of its aspects will remain with them their entire lives even if live a large part of it with other groups.

Now in the future, cultural assimilation would be more common and faster. Or in better words, normalization would become to mean full assimilation.
Because, in this current state of the world being globalized dramatically fast, many if not most of the traditional and old cultures are starting to fade away.
With a new global culture slowly replacing it, thats why many societies are closing down on its self and isolating it self in attempt to preserve its culture and even with that the pull to join this newly forming global culture with each passing generation is making even isolation incapable of preserving traditional culture as newer generations are more and more attracted into this global culture.
So at one point, there wont be exactly different cultures around the world, rather there will be a social standard that is accepted and generally followed by everyone in the world, and the difference between countries, groups, cities will be generally no more than a simple habbits that makes them differ from others, all while the basic cultural aspects are all the same.

This has been going for several decades now and is going to keep going for several decades and maybe even a century until the final state is reached.
And with the element of chance, there could be an event that is so huge that would simply remove all cultures and unit all of humanity under a simple, united global culture. And this doesn't have to be a war, in fact, a war is going to reverse or slow the process not increase it.
It is most likely going to be related to either technology or envrionment. Something that will effect all of humanity simuntaniously and push them into joining on a single front.


Now there is anther thing which is mergers between cultures, it is somewhat like assimilation but rather happens when 2 different cultural groups are slowly integrated into each other until a final product is an entirely new culture forming that differs from both old ones (and could happen for more than 2 at the same time). This usually takes a very very long time, sometimes several decades and sometimes several centuries, but if 2 or more cultural groups are in constant contact with each other it will inevitably happen.
Examples for this are the Persian tribes and the Greek city states(2 examples each within it self). If we looked at history, most of them were entirely different cultural groups who had different believes, different religions or languages in some cases, different administrive system and different way of living.
But the geographic proximity between each of them, the Greek city states between each other, and the Persian tribes between each other, has forced them to be in constant contact with each other that they slowly started integrating and merging with each other resulting in one hand the Persian culture and the Greek culture.

Same can be said about India, though India is still an ongoing process this unity.
And this is generally happening to the entirety of humanity currently due to mass globalization and the rise of communications.

[MeMe]

@ noemon

Let's talk about culture & assimilation.

For a person to assimilate into a foreign culture that culture needs to be alluring and empowering.

Indeed the sociology of group dynamics is fascinating. Actually it has become an interdisciplinary science, and there is an enormous amount of literature. Personally I like "Group dynamics" by the American sociologist Donald Forsyth and "An economic theory of greed, love, groups, and networks" by the Dutch-Australian economist Paul Frijters. Most groups are formed in order to accomplish a task. Groups make possible the division of labour, which is either a necessity, or accelerates the accomplishment. Since groups require some form of coordination, the relations between its members must be managed as well. If the members fail to integrate into the group, then its existence will not be durable.

Was it different in the past? These events however backwards they might look to some, to children they have an allure and a powerful one at that.

Next is the empowering stage, to be empowered you need to have something to look forward to for example inclusion in a network, a gang at school, a tribe at the village, a union at work, the PoFo elite or whatever.

The PoFo elite? You do have a sense of humour! Frijters sums up the advantages of groups for its members. The membership of groups supports the identity of individuals. In this way groups give a sense of security. They provide for an efficient environment for gathering information and for learning. Often they make better decisions than individuals.

There is a wide choice of models and theories relating to group dynamics. Personally I like the social exchange theory, where the individuals value the group membership by a comparison of the benefits and the costs.

Here we are discussing intra group relations. It is true that individuals have the inclination to adapt to their group moral. It is a pleasure to read the optimism of anasawad, who predicts a shared global culture within a century. However, anasawad addresses also the subject of group mergers. This concerns inter group relations, and usually these cause conflicts. This is a difficult matter, because the relation between two groups depend on their respective cultures. Since the very existence of a group is based on the exclusion of dissenting people, she will not adapt easily to others. So it is crucial that groups agree about common manners with regard to the solving of conflicts. Liberalism is a break-through in conflict resolution between interest groups. However, since for instance Asians doubt that liberalism is reconcilable with their morals, there is still a long way to go.

[Atlantis]

You have to get your priorities right.

Cultural riches are produced by the accumulation of economic wealth. There is no exception to this rule throughout history.

People willingly assimilate into a culture that promises cultural and economic wealth.

While people are attracted by economic and cultural wealth, the inflow of talents from abroad will make a place even more rich both in cultural and economic terms. This is a self-propelling virtuous cycle for as long as it lasts.

[MeMe]

@ Atlantis

People willingly assimilate into a culture that promises cultural and economic wealth.

I like to think that people weigh the costs and benefits of their decisions and actions. The costs of migration include immaterial losses, such as the absence of the native communities. Moreover, people tend to adapt quickly to their new wealth, for they compare their own situation with nearby reference groups. This means that as time goes by, the benefits shrink. On the other hands, the social costs of migration can be long lasting. Often when people decide to migrate, they are not aware of the dynamics in their cost-benefit analysis.

While people are attracted by economic and cultural wealth, the inflow of talents from abroad will make a place even more rich both in cultural and economic terms. This is a self-propelling virtuous cycle for as long as it lasts.

Liberal states do not intend to assimilate people, for they execute neutral policies. Within the state the various cultures compete with each other for dominance. The risk is evidently, that people from marginalized cultures may become alienated. This is especially so in the case of migrants with a traditional culture. Thus they may revolt against their rulers. THey may also give up their own norms, which would require the control of their behaviour by means of external coercion. This imposes a large burden on the judicial system. The state can counteract these threats by means of a policy, that furthers a mild nationalism and in this manner instills a layered loyalty. In addition the state can execute a policy of multiculturalism. This implies that the state actually facilitates cultures, because the cultural identity of each individual is considered to be a common good. At the same time, the policy of multiculturalism entails the duty of the cultural communities to engage in the social deliberations.

I copied most of these arguments from the American sociologist Amitai Etzioni. They make sense.

[Atlantis]

I like to think that people weigh the costs and benefits of their decisions and actions. The costs of migration include immaterial losses, such as the absence of the native communities. Moreover, people tend to adapt quickly to their new wealth, for they compare their own situation with nearby reference groups. This means that as time goes by, the benefits shrink. On the other hands, the social costs of migration can be long lasting. Often when people decide to migrate, they are not aware of the dynamics in their cost-benefit analysis.

I don't believe that people are rational beings who always evaluate "the costs and benefits of their decisions". Most of the time most people just act under the constraints of circumstances without fully understanding the consequences of their actions. Emigration is a leap in the dark for most people. Usually there is a strong motive for taking such a desperate action: war, hunger, adventurism, etc.

First generation immigrants will often "adapt quickly" because they have no other choice and because they feel that they ought to adapt to the host society. The offspring of immigrants are usually less docile because, having lost contact to their country of origin, the only "home" they have is the host country, where they obviously don't want to be treated as second class citizens. In cases where integration failed, the second and third generation will form a class of underprivileged who will feel resentment.

However, the vast majority of migrants integrate well and often contribute to the host country. Thus, the issue boils down to removing the barriers to integration.

Liberal states do not intend to assimilate people, for they execute neutral policies. Within the state the various cultures compete with each other for dominance. The risk is evidently, that people from marginalized cultures may become alienated. This is especially so in the case of migrants with a traditional culture. Thus they may revolt against their rulers. THey may also give up their own norms, which would require the control of their behaviour by means of external coercion. This imposes a large burden on the judicial system. The state can counteract these threats by means of a policy, that furthers a mild nationalism and in this manner instills a layered loyalty. In addition the state can execute a policy of multiculturalism. This implies that the state actually facilitates cultures, because the cultural identity of each individual is considered to be a common good. At the same time, the policy of multiculturalism entails the duty of the cultural communities to engage in the social deliberations.

Western societies change rapidly. Most people today would be incapable of living in their country as it was 50 years ago. While the biggest burden of adapting is on the newcomers, the host society also changes, picking up features or fashions from abroad or from the new citizens. All of this is normal. There is no coercion needed. The most dynamic society that is most open to change will also be the wealthiest society both in economic and cultural terms. A society with enough confidence in its own values is not afraid of change. Conversely this means, that Angst of foreigners is a sure sign of societal decline.

[MeMe]

@ Atlantis
I had to rewrite my reply several times, because I realized that this thread threatens to become yet another debate about migration. I prefer to avoid those. The present thread is intriguing, because @noemen tries to uncover the sociological aspects of migration. There exists a lot of sociological knowledge about intra- and inter-group interactions. This is worth studying, in order to better understand the culture clashes.

I don't believe that people are rational beings who always evaluate "the costs and benefits of their decisions". Most of the time most people just act under the constraints of circumstances without fully understanding the consequences of their actions.

Certainly. Many political philosophers (and Etzioni is one of them) argue that the human behaviour is determined to a large extent by collective morals. There is some truth in their point of view. But it is difficult to derive policy recommendations from a philosophical discussion. Moreover, in general people do attest that their acts have a sense of purpose. The personality expresses herself in her deliberated choices. So the idea that human behaviour is more or less rational, selfish, but also reasonable has some justification. Besides, it makes human behaviour predictable, which is obviously desirable for the analysis of society. Thus, it is not surprising that even sociology and psychology employ the idea of the rational person.

In cases where integration failed, the second and third generation will form a class of underprivileged who will feel resentment.

I prefer the term layer in stead of class, because there are no institutional barriers against social mobility. However, the mix of relative poverty and ethnicity is indeed potentially explosive. Rawls advocates a theory of justice, which includes equal chances and a redistribution. A balance must be found. Somewhere.

All of this is normal. There is no coercion needed.

I know what you mean. However, no society can do without some form of coercion (Etzioni). A just society tries simply to minimize the coercion. And when the number of conflicts increases, so will the coercion.

While the biggest burden of adapting is on the newcomers, the host society also changes

This is true for any group. It is interesting to read how anasawad argues that merely the vicinity of two groups is sufficient to bring about their integration. And indeed the daily contacts can have a positive effect. However, there are many other factors, that determine the inter-group interaction. In many cases adjacant groups do not integrate, and may even be hostile.

A society with enough confidence in its own values is not afraid of change. Conversely this means, that Angst of foreigners is a sure sign of societal decline.

Angst is an emotion, which must be controlled. However, a society can under certain conditions decay into a state of chaos and anarchy. By the way, this is also true at the personal level and for groups. Such individuals will go into therapy, and such groups will dissolve. Etzioni argues that there is a dual (combined, mutual) optimum for both collective morals and personal autonomy. The autonomy will suffer in case that the national morals become too strong, but also in case that they become too weak. The conflicts within society can become a true burden. Even if this does not result in chaos, then still the production efficiency may fall. Therefore it is desirable to generate a layered loyalty, which requires a mild form of nationalism. Consequently such a state is no longer neutral with respect to morals.

A society with enough confidence in its own values is not afraid of change.

All groups are more or less dynamic. A group with confidence in its values will try to improve them in a cumulative process. Groups are by definition to some extent exclusive. They screen their potential new members. On the other hand, groups indeed allow some form of internal opposition, because she is needed in order to innovate. But this does not means that all kinds of opposition are desirable.

The theories of groups dynamics indicate that attempted mergers of groups do fail sometimes. Of course the state disposes of powerful policy instruments, such as coercion and multiculturalism, in order to facilitate the integration process. But it is by no means obvious, that they are sufficient to accomplish a more or less harmonious society.

[noemon]

In Greece every school class has a flag bearer, who is the student with the highest marks, gets to bear the flag in national marches. Schools march in October 28 which marks the victory against the axis, and march 25 which is independence day. There has been controversy in the past about Albanian students carrying the flag as Albanians were enemies during ww2 and because they are not Greeks, though there has never been controversy about Serbians or Armenians doing so. But now there is a muslim girl who earned that right and people have been going mental.

http://www.stroumfaki.gr/2016/11/blog-post_51.html



The girl seems fine which should be more than enough. The right is earned by marks in exams at school so whatever. She earned it, she should be allowed to do it.

The girl said to those who judged her for wearing the hijab while parading the flag:

Λυπάμαι τόσο πολύ για τα τόσο επιθετικά σχόλια που δέχτηκα απο κάποιους ανθρώπους.Ζητώ συγνώμη αν προσέλαβα την Ελληνική σας περηφάνεια, δεν το έκανα σκόπιμα. Ζω στην Ελλάδα , μεγάλωσα στην Ελλάδα, αγαπάω αυτήν την χώρα και σέβομαι την ιστορία της και την ΙΕΡΗ αυτη μέρα για όλους τους Έλληνες. Ήταν μεγάλη μου τιμή να κρατήσω την σημαία αυτήν την ιστορική μέρα ανεξάρτητα της θρησκείας μου , δεν το μετανιώνω και αν μου δινόταν η ευκαιρία θα το ξανά έκανα.

I feel sorry for the aggressive comments, I am sorry if I offended your pride, it was not intentional. I live in Greece, I was born and raised in Greece, I love this country and respect her history and this sacred day for all the Greeks, It was a great honour holding the flag and if I were given the chance I would do it again.

[noemon]

What do you guys think about that Muslim girl I mentioned earlier parading a flag with a Christian cross and being explicitly proud of it? And the cross is not meant to be something else, it is meant to be what it is.

I'm feeling quite proud tbh, that we manage to assimilate people like her into a country that is explicitly christian and tells you about it every chance it gets, we still had up until a month ago, daily prayer in schools when Syriza removed it after centuries, non-christian could be exempt but rarely anyone did.

[Albert]

You did not assimilate her. It is just a show to make you feel all is well.

People like you are celebrating destruction of your own nation. That girl parading is a mockery to rational eyes, yet you feel proud.

[noemon]

A Muslim girl parades a Cross and tells you openly she is proud for serving her nation. Why should I be outraged and not proud?

Would I be prouder if she spat on it or if she had refused the honour? Would you?

[Albert]

What has she assimilated into noemon. Into your hipster fantasy of where everyone holds hands and sing coca cola song?

To assimilate it means to take on Greek culture. She obviously has not. But just paraded around with a cross and Greek flag.

So what is there to be proud about that?

[noemon]

She has taken up Greek culture and she has confessed her national pride in public which is a lot more than other "assimilated people" can say for themselves while maintaining her own cultural peculiarities like you for example, you still have your own peculiarities despite living and adopting Anglo-culture.

Greek women used to wear a hijab/mantili until very recently, my mother still does for example as did my grandma and don't forget Athenians invented it in the first place. So what's the issue really?

[Albert]

The issue is what is the point of all this. Why is she in Greece in the first place, why do I have to watch this whole drama and talk about immigrants assimilating? Why not just have a normal society without this mass migration going around? That is the point.

[noemon]

Honestly how can you ask that, when the question can be turned around to:

"Why are you in Canada?"

[noemon]

Also you may not realise it but I am still essentially an ethno-nationalist mate, I enjoy the fact my ethnicity doing great things and assimilating people considered by others impossible to do so.

Before I got married, the only reservation I had was that my wife has no Greek blood, but I overcame it as I was overwhelmed by her.

[Political Interest]

What do you guys think about that Muslim girl I mentioned earlier parading a flag with a Christian cross and being explicitly proud of it? And the cross is not meant to be something else, it is meant to be what it is.

I'm feeling quite proud tbh, that we manage to assimilate people like her into a country that is explicitly christian and tells you about it every chance it gets, we still had up until a month ago, daily prayer in schools when Syriza removed it after centuries, non-christian could be exempt but rarely anyone did.

It is a very good sign. In most Western countries it would be interpreted positively.

However this should not be used as a pretext for turning Greece into a multicultural society. Unfortunately flag waving is often used to advocate the success of open door immigration.

[noemon]

Greece is nowhere near as successful as the UK in integration but I can say we are a lot more successful than countries in our calibre. Also lately I observe a trend in the UK of people integrating in British culture but not actually assimilating and turning against the country. Some kind of British cultural fatigue, while Greece being on an earlier stage is still culturally strong to keep this up for the next couple of decades at least.

Greece started assimilating people in 1991 with the Albanians, Serbians and Armenians first which in total numbered about 1,8 million naturalisations between 1991 and 2000, that is a huge percent if you think about in a country of 11 million, and this was crowned as a success and then in 1999 started assimilating Pakistanis, Africans and other sort of "alien" people to Greek culture, which was going to be more difficult than Serbs, Armenians and Albanians who are essentially "Greeks" speaking a different language.

[Albert]

Honestly how can you ask that, when the question can be turned around to:

"Why are you in Canada?"

What does it have to do with me?

[noemon]

Because you wonder why is she and her family an immigrant, I guess you can answer that question by yourself, no? I can too, I immigrated to the UK after all looking to explore more than Greece could offer me, though for me it was meant to be temporary, I stayed.