Cultural Identification Among Immigrants from the Former USSR: Insights from Comparative Research with Five Groups in Germany and Israel

  • Katharina Sonnenberg
  • Peter F. Titzmann
  • Rainer K. Silbereisen
Chapter
Part of the Societies and Political Orders in Transition book series (SOCPOT)

Abstract

The chapter presents a comparative study on immigrants’ cultural identification with the majority in their country of settlement and with their minority background. We focused on diaspora immigrants who after the fall of communist regimes left the former USSR and immigrated either to Germany (i.e., ethnic Germans) or to Israel (i.e., Russian Jews) and compared them with Russian Jewish refugees in Germany, Turks in Germany, and the Arab minority in Israel. Results point to considerable group differences in majority and minority identification that seemed to be due to country of settlement, groups’ (legal) status, and distance to the cultural mainstream in terms of religion. Individual assets such as finances and high-status social networks added to the prediction of majority identification. Moreover, higher identification was related to higher engagement in terms of language, attitudes, and peer contacts, both with respect to majority and minority culture. Taken together, the results suggest that contextual factors play a major role in the adaptation process of former USSR immigrants.

Keywords

Cultural identification Diaspora immigrants Refugees Ethnic Germans Russian Jews Germany Israel Religion Engagement with majority and minority culture 

References

  1. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), 5–34.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.xGoogle Scholar
  2. Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 55, 303–332.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00256.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry, J. W., Westin, C., Virta, E., Vedder, P., Rooney, R., & Sang, D. (2006). Design of the study: Selecting societies of settlement and immigrant groups. In J. W. Berry, J. S. Phinney, D. L. Sam, & P. Vedder (Eds.), Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity, and adaptation across national contexts (pp. 15–45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York, NY: Greenwood.Google Scholar
  5. Bourhis, R. Y., Moïse, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senécal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32(6), 369–386.  https://doi.org/10.1080/002075997400629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371–399.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(6), 745–778.  https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0992(200011/12)30:6<745::AID-EJSP24>3.0.CO;2-OCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donovan, B. (2007). Minority representation in Germany. German Politics, 16(4), 455–480.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09644000701652482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doosje, B., Ellemers, N., & Spears, R. (1995). Perceived intragroup variability as a function of group status and identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(5), 410–436.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1995.1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ganzeboom, H. B. G., de Graaf, P. M., & Treiman, D. J. (1992). A standard international socio-economic index of occupational status. Social Science Research, 21(1), 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hazuda, H. P., Stern, M. P., & Haffner, S. M. (1988). Acculturation and assimilation among Mexican Americans: Scales and population-based data. Social Science Quarterly, 69(3), 687–706.Google Scholar
  13. Kamm, S. (2003). The Arab minority in Israel. Implications for the Middle East conflict. Working Paper No. 8. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  14. Mammey, U., & Sattig, J. (2002). Determinanten und Indikatoren der Integration der ausländischen Bevölkerung (Integrationssurvey). Projekt- und Materialdokumentation [Determinants and indicators for the integration of the foreign population (Survey on integration). Project and material documentation]. Wiesbaden: Bundesinstitut für Bevölkerungsforschung.Google Scholar
  15. Ohliger, R., & Münz, R. (2003). Diaspora and ethnic migrants in twentieth-century Europe: A comparative perspective. In R. Münz & R. Ohliger (Eds.), Diasporas and ethnic migrants. Germany, Israel and post-Soviet successor states in comparative perspective. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  16. Rodríguez, S. A., Perez-Brena, N. J., Updegraff, K. A., & Umaña-Taylor, A. J. (2014). Emotional closeness in Mexican-origin adolescents’ relationships with mothers, fathers, and same-sex friends. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(12), 1953–1968.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0004-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ryder, A. G., Alden, L. E., & Paulhus, D. L. (2000). Is acculturation unidimensional or bidimensional? A head-to-head comparison in the prediction of personality, self-identity, and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(1), 49–65.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.1.49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shavit, Y. (1990). Segregation, tracking, and the educational attainment of minorities: Arabs and Oriental Jews in Israel. American Sociological Review, 55(1), 115–126.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2095707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Silbereisen, R. K., Titzmann, P. F., & Shavit, Y. (Eds.). (2014). The challenges of diaspora migration: Interdisciplinary perspectives on Israel and Germany. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  20. Stoessel, K., Titzmann, P. F., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2011). Children’s psychosocial development following the transitions to kindergarten and school: A comparison between natives and immigrants in Germany. International Journal of Developmental Science, 5(1–2), 41–55.  https://doi.org/10.3233/DEV-2011-11077Google Scholar
  21. Stoessel, K., Titzmann, P. F., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2012). Young diaspora immigrants’ attitude and behavior toward the host culture: The role of cultural identification. European Psychologist, 17(2), 143–157.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Thran, M., & Boehnke, L. (2015). The value-based nationalism of Pegida. Journal for Deradicalization, 3, 178–209.Google Scholar
  24. Titzmann, P. F. (2005). Differences in processes of acculturation among adolescent immigrants in Israel and Germany. Development and use of a new instrument to assess acculturative hassles (doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.db-thueringen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-8517/diss_pubikation.pdf
  25. Titzmann, P. F., & Stoessel, K. (2014). Diaspora migration in Israel and Germany: Unique contexts or examples of a general phenomenon? In R. K. Silbereisen, P. F. Titzmann, & Y. Shavit (Eds.), The challenges of diaspora migration: Interdisciplinary perspectives on Israel and Germany (pp. 271–288). Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  26. Tsuda, T. (Ed.). (2009). Diasporic homecomings: Ethnic return migration in comparative perspective. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2016). International Migration Report 2015: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/375).Google Scholar
  28. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1997). International Standard Classification of Education: ISCED 1997. Paris: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.Google Scholar
  29. Updegraff, K. A., McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Kupanoff, K. (2001). Parents’ involvement in adolescents’ peer relationships: A comparison of mothers’ and fathers’ roles. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(3), 655–668.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00655.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van der Gaag, M., Snijders, T. A. B., & Flap, H. (2008). Position generator measures and their relationship to other social capital measures. In N. Lin & B. H. Erickson (Eds.), Social capital. An international research program (pp. 27–48). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Verdugo, R. R., & Mueller, C. (2008). Education, social embeddedness, and the integration of the Turkish community in Germany. European Education, 40(4), 3–22.  https://doi.org/10.2753/EUE1056-4934400401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ward, C., & Geeraert, N. (2016). Advancing acculturation theory and research: The acculturation process in its ecological context. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 98–104.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.09.021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weingrod, A., & Levy, A. (2006). Social thought and commentary: Paradoxes of homecoming: The Jews and their diasporas. Anthropological Quarterly, 79(4), 691–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katharina Sonnenberg
    • 1
  • Peter F. Titzmann
    • 2
  • Rainer K. Silbereisen
    • 3
  1. 1.FernUniversitätHagenGermany
  2. 2.Leibniz UniversityHannoverGermany
  3. 3.University of JenaJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations