ARCHIVED – Recent Immigrants, Earlier Immigrants and the Canadian–Born: Association with Collective Identities

2. Review of the literature

2.1 The concept of identity

Identity is about definition and is what makes us who we are. As social creatures “there is a very deep ontological longing in people to feel complete, which manifests itself in a desire to belong to something that is greater than oneself and to participate actively in the life of this supra-individual entity” (Létourneau 2001, 5).

Researchers argue that collective identities matter primarily because they are related to social cohesion (Jenson 1998; Muir 2007). According to Muir, shared values, shared action and shared identity lead to social cohesion. In this context, identity brings two important attributes to the table: “affective attachment and easy-to-generalise, imagined solidarities between large numbers of people” (Muir 2007, 8). This is because collective identity “involves the imaginative leap of bringing people together with large numbers of others under one symbolic roof and … allows us to generalise from individual encounters to a sense of solidarity with the broader community” (Muir 2007, 9). Furthermore, shared identity has the potential to make a distinct and valuable contribution to social cohesion through its ability to foster affective ties between potentially quite large numbers of people (Muir 2007, 17).

What makes individuals who they are is not only their personal traits and characteristics but also their membership – attributed by oneself or ascribed by others – in (real or imagined) social categories and social groups. In its social context, identity can be defined as “the distinctive character belonging to any given individual, or shared by all members of a particular social category or group… “Identity” may be distinguished from “identification”; the former is a label whereas the latter refers to the classifying act itself” (Rummens 2001, 3).

The sociological literature on identity suggests that identity and the related concept of identification are about situating an individual actor in society, about classification or categorisation (Tajfel 1974; Rummens 2001; Ashmore et al. 2004) and about the labelling of elements (individuals, groups) that share a same-ness (Tastsoglou 2001; Bokser-Liwerant 2002). As Tajfel, developer of social identity theory in the 1970s, indicates, identity in a social context involves “the individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of his membership of a social group (or groups) together with the emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel 1974, 69).

Snow distinguishes between personal, social and collective identity: “personal identities are the attributes and meaning attributed to oneself by the actor; they are self-designations and self-attributions regarded as personally distinctive” (Snow 2001, 2). Meanwhile, social identities are “the identities attributed or imputed to others in an attempt to situate them in social space. They are grounded in established social roles” (Snow 2001, 2). Snow believes that collective identities are different from the first two types; collective identities have embedded within them a corresponding sense of collective agency facilitating collective action. He states: “Although there is no consensual definition of collective identity, discussions of the concept invariably suggest that its essence resides in a shared sense of “one-ness” or “we-ness” anchored in real or imagined shared attributes and experiences among those who comprise the collectivity and in relation or contrast to one or more actual or imagined sets of “others”” (Snow 2001, 2).

It should be noted that in the literature, the concept of identity is also associated with the idea of boundaries. More specifically, identities are bounded in that they confer not only a sense of same-ness, but also of difference or distinctiveness from outsiders (Tajfel 1974; Tastsoglou 2001; Bokser-Liwerant 2002; Muir 2007).

2.2  The characteristics of identity

Identities are generally understood to be constructed, multiple, dynamic, relational and negotiated, and to vary in their salience. Current research suggests that identities are constructed, meaning that they are created, shaped and formulated by individuals as social actors, by groups and their social environments, as opposed to being essential or predetermined. This view is shared by several researchers including Rummens (2001), Létourneau (2001), Frideres (2002) and Ashmore et al. (2004).

According to Létourneau “there is general agreement that collective identity … is “constructed,” that is to say, manufactured from elements drawn from historical materials and reified (or petrified) as identity references” (Létourneau 2001, 5). Frideres explains that identities “change as a consequence of both internal and external pressures” (Frideres 2002, 4).

Identities are understood to be multiple, in that they can be numerous and varied. A given individual can have a variety of identities, which can intersect, overlap, conflict and collide. This view on identity is shared by a number of researchers, including Peressini (1993), Rummens (2001), Létourneau (2001), Tastsoglou (2001) and Snow (2001). According to Rummens, “there are almost an unlimited number of “identities” that are ascribed to and/or assumed by individuals and groups as social actors” (Rummens 2001, 4).

Identities are also thought of as being dynamicin that they are understood to be fluid and malleable rather than fixed or static, and they may change over time and from place to place. This is a characteristic echoed by such authors as Létourneau (2001), Bokser-Liwerant (2002), Croucher (2004) and Rashid (2007). Létourneau, for example, understands identity as a “continual re-interpretation of the self. This is why it is said that identity is not fixed but changing and alive” (Létourneau 2001, 2).

Identities are generally considered relational. This view is discussed in the works of Tajfel (1974), Létourneau (2001) and Frideres (2002). What is meant by the relational nature of identity is two-fold. Firstly, identity is relational in that it is socially-embedded, inter-subjective, not constructed in isolation from its social context. “In short, individual identity is the product of a self-definition (or self-narration) process and of “external definition” (or “external narration”) by others, whether individually or collectively. It can therefore be said that identity is a social, inter-subjective activity because it is the product of a relationship with the other in which the reference to others is internalized by the subject” (Létourneau 2001, 4).

Secondly, identity is relational in that it is generally understood to be other-referenced. It says something about same-ness but also about difference and about others. Identity thus implies comparison, contrast and boundaries. “The definition of a group (national, racial or any other) makes no sense unless there are other groups around. A group becomes a group in the sense of being perceived as having common characteristics or a common fate only because other groups are present in the environment” (Tajfel 1974, 71-72).

Identities are negotiated, contested and may or may not be taken up by the individual actor or group. This feature of identity is suggested in Rummens (2001), Hoerder et al. (2006), Rashid (2007), and Muir (2007). Muir for example, states that identity “is a process in which meaning is constantly being asserted, contested and negotiated” (Muir 2007, 11). Rummens asserts that identities “are not just ascribed or achieved as part of the individual's socialization and developmental process, they are also socially constructed and negotiated by social actors. These identifications of self and/or others may be accepted or they may be contested” (Rummens 2001, 15).

2.3 What happens to national identities in the process of migration?

Frideres explains that immigrants “find the process of physically relocating presents a new definition of who they are” (Frideres 2002, 1-2). Grant explains that immigrants “often internalize a new national identity when they move to another country (psychological acculturation), although doing so means identifying with a culture that has values and traditions different from those of their culture of origin” (Grant 2007, 89). This process of internalisation – this change in the self-concept – if well realised, results in the development of a new national identity for the individual.

Different authors associate the development of a new national identity with successful integration. Walters et al. argue that “identification with the host society is important for national unity” (Walters 2007, 60). While the successful integration process involves acculturation and thus a shift in national identification, it does not imply that immigrants do, or should, put aside previous national identities.

Transnationalism is related to the transcendence of national boundaries and the involvement of several nations or nationalities. The concept of transnational identities is evoked in the works of various authors, such as Gardiner Barber (2003), Croucher (2004), Ehrkamp & Leitner (2006) and Grant (2007). Gardiner Barber argues that as “a global process migration produces citizens who have multiple connections and attachments. Immigrants view the world comparatively through a lens we now describe as transnational … Thus it may be said that all migrants, potentially at least, hold transnational identities” (Gardiner Barber 2003, 45). “The concept of transnationalism … suggests that immigrants forge and sustain familial, economic, cultural, and political ties and identities across national borders, in both home and host societies. ... In short, contemporary migrants are embedded in, identify with, and participate in multiple communities, and are not just, nor even primarily, anchored in one national collectivity” (Ehrkamp & Leitner 2006, 1593).

The literature reviewed suggests that different factors may impact upon the development of a new national identity by immigrants. These include, but are not limited to: the time spent in the host country (Grant 2007; Walters et al. 2007); the acquisition of formal citizenship (Krzyzanowsli & Wodak 2007; Walters et al. 2007); the degree of correspondence or incompatibility between the cultures of origin and of destination (Grant 2007); and the experiences in the host society (Grant 2007; Krzyzanowsli & Wodak 2007).

2.4 Collective identities and belonging amongst Canadians

Identity is a concept that can be operationalised in different ways for empirical study. As previously noted, the concept of identity, more specifically of collective identity, is related to belonging. This is the measure used in the studies of Schellenberg (2004a & 2004b) and Ipsos Reid (2007). A similar measure is also used in the cross-country comparison by Laczko (2005).

Ipsos Reid conducted a national survey in 2007 that “explores the levels of social engagement and attachment to Canada among English-speaking first and second generation Canadian immigrants, and compares findings to a nationally representative sample of Canadians” (Ipsos Reid 2007, 1). Respondents were asked how strong their sense of belonging was to Canada. Their findings reveal that 88% of second generation Canadians reported their sense of belonging as strong (rating of four or five out of five), compared to 81% of first generation immigrants and 79% of the general population; while 71% of second generation Canadians indicated that their sense of belonging was very strong (rating of five out of five), compared to 58% of first generation Canadians and 62% of the general population [note 3] (Ipsos Reid 2007, 4).

Cycle 17 of Statistics Canada’s General Social Survey (GSS 17), conducted in 2003, focused on social engagement and included questions on the sense of belonging to Canada, to their province and to their community. According to the results, immigrants reported a stronger sense of belonging to Canada than the Canadian-born population: 85.6% [note 4] of the Canadian-born reported a strong sense of belonging to Canada, as did 93.0% of established immigrants, [note 5] 91.0% of those who immigrated between 1980 and 1990, and 87.6% of those who immigrated between 1991 and 2003 (Schellenberg 2004a).

Results also show that the sense of belonging to one’s community did not vary considerably between the Canadian-born and immigrant populations: 69.4% of the Canadian-born reported a strong sense of belonging to their community, as did 71.2% of those who immigrated before 1980, 67.0% of those who immigrated between 1980 and 1990, and 68.2% of those respondents who immigrated between 1990 and 2003 (Schellenberg 2004a).

Finally, let us consider the analysis by Laczko, using data from the 1995 International Social Survey Program (ISSP). In this study, the author looks at data from 24 countries (including Canada), first as a whole, and then in a cross-country comparison. While the study did not make use of the concept of “sense of belonging”, the 1995 ISSP used a similar measure, asking survey respondents about how “close” they feel to various levels of community (neighbourhood or village, town or city, province, country and continent), and about their willingness to geographically relocate (Laczko 2005, 519). The author found considerable cross-national similarities, and noted that “people [including Canadians] feel closest to their country or national society, and least to their continent” (Laczko 2005, 522-523). With regard to Canadian results, the author also found that Canadians express “relatively low levels of attachment to local communities” (Laczko 2005, 527).


Footnotes

[Note 3] The data from this study was weighted to ensure each of the three sub-population groups were reflective of the actual population.

[Note 4] Responses “not stated” were removed from the calculations.

[Note 5] Those who immigrated prior to 1980.

Page details

Date modified: