ROUTLEDGE LIBRARY EDITIONS:

IMMIGRATION AND MIGRATION

Volume 2

THE ABSORPTION OF
IMMIGRANTS
 THE ABSORPTION OF
IMMIGRANTS

A Comparative Study Based Mainly

on the Jewish Community in Palestine
and the State of Israel

S. N. EISENSTADT
First published in 1954 by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd
This edition first published in 2023
by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 1954 S.N. Eisenstadt
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to
infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-032-31713-7 (Set)

ISBN: 978-1-032-36400-1 (Volume 2) (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-032-36401-8 (Volume 2) (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-33176-6 (Volume 2) (ebk)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003331766
Publisher’s Note
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but
points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent.
Disclaimer
The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and would
welcome correspondence from those they have been unable to trace.
THE ABSORPTION OF
IMMIGRANTS
A COMPARATIVE STUDY
BASED MAINLY ON THE JEWISH COMMUNITY
IN PALESTINE AND THE STATE OF ISRAEL

by
S. N. EISENSTADT

ROUTLEDGE & KEGAN PAUL LTD.

Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane
London
 First published in igj4
by Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Broadway House, 68-74 Carter Lane
London E.C.4
Printed in Great Britain
by W. & J. Mackay & Co. Ltd.
Chatham
TO MY MOTHER

' 0 K *?
 CONTENTS
PREFACE page ix

I. CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION AND IMMIGRANT

ABSORPTION page i

II. THE GENERAL TREND OF MODERN JEWISH MIGRATION page 27

in. THE YISHUV page 46

IV. THE ORIENTAL JEWS IN PALESTINE page 90

V. IMMIGRATION AND IMMIGRANT ABSORPTION IN THE
STATE OF ISRAEL page 105
VI. THE ABSORPTION OF NEW IMMIGRANTS IN ISRAEL
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW SOCIETY page I 39
1. Main Types of Immigrant Groups—2. Levels of integration of im-
migrants within the absorbing society—3. Conditions of Absorption:
(a) The framework of bureaucratic absorption—(b) The impact of
school and army—(c) Patterns of mobility and leadership selection—
4. Intergroup relations and tensions—5. Types of immigrant settlc-
ments~6. Problems of development of a new society—7. A summary
comparison between the Yishuv and the State of Israel.
VII. ANALYSIS OF SOME CASE STUDIES OF MODERN
MIGRATIONS page 226
1. The General Background of Modern Migrations.
2. Agricultural Immigrants in Europe.
3. The Plantation Pattern.
4. Immigration to the United States.
Appendix (A note on Asiatic Migrations).
viii. CONCLUSIONS page 258

BIBLIOGRAPHY page 266

INDEX page 270

vii
 PREFACE

T HE purpose of this book is twofold. It is, firstly, an analysis

of the process of absorption of various waves of immigrants
into the Jewish community in Palestine (the Yishuv) and into
the State of Israel and of the resulting development of a new com-
munity, an analysis which has grown out of a series of investigations
undertaken by the Research Seminar in Sociology at the Hebrew
University. But it is also an attempt to provide a systematic socio-
logical framework for the analysis of migration and the absorption
of immigrants in modern societies. This framework has developed
gradually out of some of these investigations; mainly from their
initial stages, when the broad hypotheses which guided them and
were tested by their means were formulated. Most of the accessible
literature on the subject was read in order to formulate these hypo-
theses, and although our research was limited to a specific setting,
we felt that some of its assumptions may have wider applications.
It seemed to us that many of the systematic expositions of the pro-
cesses in question are mainly demographic and economic in char-
acter, and although there are abundant sociological materials
dealing with various specific aspects and instances of migration,
they appear to have little unity or systematic interdependence.
During our researches such a unitary framework gradually
emerged, and this is here presented. Although it probably has
some original features, its debt to the numerous studies in this field
will be obvious to anyone acquainted with the literature, and that
debt has been acknowledged in the notes. It lays no claim to
finality, but is put forward tentatively as one of many hypotheses
yet to be tested.
The book's twofold purpose explains its plan. In Chapter One
the general sociological framework is outlined. This is then applied
in the body of the book to the Jewish immigrations (Alijoth) to
ix
 PREFACE
Palestine and Israel, the analysis being mainly based on original
research of various kinds. In the penultimate chapter this analysis
is applied, in a very summary fashion, to some outstanding modern
instances of immigration. This is done mainly on the basis of
secondary literature, our main purpose being to test our frame-
work and to suggest some possibilities of more detailed inquiry.
There follows a series of tentative conclusions which may serve as
detailed hypotheses for such inquiries.
The materials on which the analysis of migration to the Yishuv
and to the State of Israel is based are as follows:
(1) Various general survey materials, principally the surveys
and researches of the Government Bureau of Statistics, which
cover a wide field, especially from the demographic point of view.
These surveys have provided excellent background material for
our analysis.
(2) Sources from general contemporary history: newspaper
articles, the reports of various administrative agencies, digests of
laws, social and political information of various kinds, etc. Such
documents, the source-material for the historian of the future, are
also of great value for the purpose of contemporary analysis,
mainly as affording a general guide to social trends and changes.
(3) Various systematic sociological researches, mainly those
carried out at the Research Seminar in Sociology of the Hebrew
University. It is obvious that these should be the chief basis of our
analysis; but they are not in themselves sufficient, for several
reasons. Firstly, their number is necessarily limited, and they have
not covered all the many developments and changes. Some of
them—such as various public opinion surveys, etc.—add nothing
to the other background materials. Others, it is true, were
planned in such a way as to afford a systematic analysis of the
main structural factors of and changes in Israeli society, and were
carried out in those areas where the general background material
indicated that important problems may arise to influence the
changing pattern of society. But even these have not covered all
the relevant spheres, and although many more researches are in
hand, they cannot, and probably never will, extend over the
whole field. Hence we have often had to depend on less systematic
materials, though we believe that the combination of the two has
been useful to complete the picture. But for the sake of clearness,
x
 PREFACE
we have generally indicated on what kind of material each aspect
of the analysis is based. It must also be remembered that the social
setting in Israel is continuously changing. It has not, therefore,
been our purpose to provide a static picture of any one stage of
development. We have attempted rather to analyse the general
evolutionary trends, the various processes that are taking place,
and the main possibilities inherent in them.
It has not, of course, been possible to quote in extenso all the re-
searches on which this book is based. Some have been published
(references to these are given in footnotes and the bibliography);
some are in process of publication; and we have utilized some
which are still undergoing final analysis. Only those aspects of
them which are most pertinent to our theme have been drawn
upon. The very nature of the material available to us has im-
posed some limitations. Thus, while we have been so fortunate as to
have at our disposal the results of the numerous interesting demo-
graphic researches conducted mainly by Prof. R. Bachi, no parallel
material was at hand for a detailed and intensive analysis of econo-
mic structures and attitudes, and our work from this point of view
has correspondingly suffered. It is to be hoped that the research
projects in this field, now being undertaken by Prof. A. Bonne and
the Department of Economics of the Hebrew University, will pro-
vide us with such material in years to come. Meanwhile more ex-
tensive sociological researches now in prospect will give us a more
detailed picture, and afford yet another method of testing the ap-
proach here proposed.
It is no part of the book's purpose to provide a description of the
State of Israel. Several works which have succeeded in doing this
are available in English, the best of them being perhaps Prof. N.
Bentwich's Israel (1952), to which the reader is referred.
During the researches which led up to this book, and in the
course of writing it, I have incurred more debts than it is possible
to enumerate. But among them I must put on record, firstly, that
to my students at the Hebrew University who took part in the re-
search and in the various lectures and seminars on this project,
and whose discussions and criticism have helped to throw light on
many important problems.
To my friend and colleague, Prof. R. Bachi, I am grateful for
his generosity in putting at my disposal some of his unpublished
xi
 PREFACE
work and for allowing me to make use of several tables from the
publications of the Central Bureau of Statistics of Israel, of which
he is the Director. Mr. J. Ben-David of the Department of Socio-
logy of the Hebrew University read some parts of the manuscript
and made several important suggestions, as has Mrs. R. Wein-
berger, who also assisted me in collection of some of the data.
I have discussed many of the problems here treated with friends
to whose comments and criticisms I owe much. Among them I
would mention especially Prof. A. Broderson, Prof. D. V. Glass,
Prof. M. Ginsberg, Prof. M. Ross, Prof. E. A. Shils, Prof. T. S.
Simey.
I would like also to thank those who have helped me in the pre-
paration of the manuscript. My secretary, Mrs. J. Schorr, whose
help was unfailing in the preparation of the various drafts and in
correcting the English, Miss H. Tenenbaum and her staff for the
preparation of the typescript and last but not least Mr. A. S. B.
Glover who has done wonderful work in improving the English of
the book and making it more readable, although he is by no means
responsible for any faults that remain.
I would like also to thank those whose generous contributions
have enabled the carrying out of the research work on which this
book is based to a large extent: foremost among them, Dr. G.
Wise, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Hebrew Uni-
versity, whose grant for Sociological Research gave the first im-
petus to, and enabled large-scale work. I would like also to mention
the Department of Oriental Jews of the Jewish Agency, and the
Ministry of Education and Culture for their generous grants.
December 1953. s. N. EISENSTADT
Jerusalem, The Hebrew University,
The Eliezer Kaplan School
of Economics and Social Science.

Xll
 Chapter One

CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION AND

IMMIGRANT ABSORPTION
I

I N this chapter we shall analyse some of the most important

fundamental social and psychological characteristics of the pro-
cess of migration and of absorption of immigrants, making the
postulate that despite many specific differences between various
migrations, some broad features are common to all of them, or at
least to those of modern times, though these common features may
vary in relative importance and in their method of interconnexion.
We shall first outline these characteristics, and in subsequent
chapters establish their common character by a consideration of
various particular cases.
We define migration as the physical transition of an individual
or a group from one society to another. This transition usually
involves abandoning one social setting and entering another and
different one. Keeping this definition in mind, we can ascertain
the basic socio-psychological components of each stage or aspect
of the migratory movement.
In every movement of the kind we can find three such stages.
First, the motivation to migrate—the needs or dispositions which
urge people to move from one place to another; second, the social
structure of the actual migratory process, of the physical transition
from the original society to a new one; third, the absorption of the
immigrants within the social and cultural framework of the new
society.
We assume that every migratory movement is motivated by the
migrant's feeling of some kind of insecurity and inadequacy in his
B I
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
original social setting. The literature on migration, and such
sources as the letters of immigrants, interviews, and the like,
abound in indications that the migrant feels some kind of frustra-
tion, of inability to attain some level of aspiration in his original
society, where he is unable to gratify all his expectations or to
fulfil the role of his desire. This may be due to a variety of causes-—
over-population, the shrinkage of economic opportunities, the
opening-up of new cultural and economic horizons and channels
of communication, political oppression, and so on; it is not our
concern to enumerate these at this stage of our discussion. We
shall not here inquire what are the conditions in which migration
is found to be the best solution for this inadequacy, as compared
with others, for example, rebellion. It is this feeling of frustration
and inadequacy, whatever its cause, that motivates migration,
and it is the existence of some objective opportunity that makes it
possible to realize the aspiration to migrate. For this reason, im-
migrants also tend to develop certain definite expectations in re-
gard to the role they will fulfil in their new country. The hope of
resolving some of their frustrations in that country brings it within
the scope of their social or perceptual field. These expectations may
be more or less definite, and the images called up by the new
country may differ widely as between one type of migrant and
another, but some such expectation can usually be found among
them all. These provide him with his initial and predisposing atti-
tudes towards his new country, and serve as a background for
more concrete expectations concerning the part he is to play
there.
Although immigration involves complete physical transition
from one society to another, this does not mean that the immigrant
necessarily develops expectations concerning his future role in
every separate sphere of the new society. In other words, the
motive for migration is not necessarily a feeling of insecurity and
inadequacy in every main sphere of social life. The immigrant, as
has often been pointed out, may remain 'attached' to his original
society and culture in various ways. This would mean that in some
spheres there had been no overwhelming feeling of inadequacy
and frustration. Thus, both the feeling of inadequacy and the con-
sequent expectations in relation to the new society may be limited
to certain aspects alone of the total social field of contact between
2
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
individual and society. We may here distinguish four such main
spheres from the point of view of the immigrant's motives and
aspirations.1 First, he may feel that his original society does not
provide him with enough facilities for and possibilities of adapta-
tion, i.e., that he cannot maintain a given level of physical exis-
tence or ensure his, or his family's, survival within it. Secondly, and
even more frequently, his migration may be prompted by the
feeling that certain goals, mainly instrumental in nature (e.g.,
economic or other satisfactions) cannot be attained within the
institutional structure of his society of origin. Many modern
European overseas migrations have been motivated by such feel-
ings of inadequacy; hence the great emphasis placed by various
theories of migration upon economic problems and factors.2
Thirdly, the immigrant may feel that within the old society he
cannot fully gratify his aspirations to solidarity, i.e., to complete
mutual identification with other persons and with the society as a
whole. Migration of political refugees and emigres is strongly
marked by this particular feeling of inadequacy. Fourthly, he may
feel that his society of origin does not afford him the chance of
attaining a worthwhile and sincere pattern of life, or of following
out a progressive social theory, or at any rate does so only parti-
ally. The most outstanding examples of this are the migrations of
the various Utopian groups which settled in the United States,
Canada, and elsewhere. Perhaps the early Puritan migrations
which established the American Colonies were also thus moti-
vated.
The distinction here made between the various spheres of
society may provide an important tool for an analysis of the pro-
cesses of migration and absorption. The stability of any society
depends on an optimum number of its members finding satisfac-
tion and gratification in all four of these spheres in accordance
with the society's institutional arrangements. Lack of gratifica-
tion in any of them necessarily upsets social stability, and gives
rise to various processes of social change. Such lack of gratification
1
This distinction follows in a general way that of Parsons, Shils, and Bales in
their work on systems of action and group-structure in Working Papers Towards a
Theory of Action, February, 1953.
2
See, for instance, P. Fromonte, Demographie konomique, Paris, 1947, pp. 174
ff, and M. Reinhard, Histoire de la population mondiale, Paris, 1950.
3
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
need not affect all these spheres; the feeling of inadequacy may
be stronger in one than in another, and migration is not necessarily
motivated by the existence of such a feeling in regard to all of
them. The inadequacy may be limited to one alone, or at least
may be felt most strongly in relation to one sphere, while in others
there may still be a strong attachment to the old setting. Hence,
the immigrant's initial attraction to his new country may be
limited to a single sphere (e.g., the attainment of certain economic
goals), without any disposition to the performance of new roles in
other fields, such as that of family relations. Consequently his in-
tegration into the new society may, at any rate at first, be impeded
by the limitation of his expectations to only one, or a few, aspects
of the social life and not to all of them. The initial image he
develops of the new country may be focused on one aspect alone,
e.g., that of economic opportunity, while as regards other aspects
it may still cling to the old setting.
Thus it is obvious that the analysis of the immigrant's motives for
migration and his consequent 'image' of the new country is not of
historical interest alone, but is also of crucial importance for
understanding his initial attitudes and behaviour in his new set-
ting. It is this initial motivation that constitutes the first stage of
the process of social change inherent in any migration and in the
absorption of the immigrants, and this first stage largely influences
the subsequent stages inasmuch as it decides the immigrant's
orientation and degree of readiness to accept change.

II
The second stage is usually what we may call the physical pro-
cess of migration, the actual transplantation itself. This process,
however, is not merely a physical one. It involves wide social
changes, and is the first actual stage of the re-forming of the immi-
grant's social field. Like the first stage, it is not merely of historical
interest, but entails some important analytical elements. Firstly,
all such processes carry with them a shrinkage in the individual's
field of social participation and in the extent of his group life.
Through the migratory process, he detaches himself from many—
sometimes most—of the social roles he had previously performed,
and becomes limited to a relatively restricted field and group.
4
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
Migration always takes place in comparatively small groups
which are taken out of their total setting. These may be either
already existing groups—families, bodies of neighbours, political
fraternities, etc.—or new ones brought into being with a view to
the migration. The nature of these groups—their composition,
values, and roles—is closely connected with the initial motive for
migration. Thus, if the principal motive was economic, they may
be either existing families which maintain their old culture, or
relatively uncoordinated, non-cohesive groups of young un-
married men and women, who hope to amass a fortune and then
return home.x On the other hand, if the basic motive is to estab-
lish a new pattern of life, a new type of overall society, the mi-
grants may develop special new groupings, various kinds of
closely cohesive sects and Bunde, unlike any of the groups existing
in the original society.
However these groups are composed—and we shall examine
several examples in subsequent chapters—the migratory process
always involves a narrowing of the sphere of social participation.
This limitation is of a twofold character: on the one hand, many
of the roles which the individual had performed within his old
society he can perform no longer. His life is centred in one or several
restricted primary membership groups, which by their very nature
make it possible for him to perform but few roles. On the other
hand, the various institutional channels of communication between
these groups and the whole society are largely severed. The various
reference groups of the old society towards which the individual
and the small groups were oriented, the various leaders, elites, and
wider formal or semi-formal associations with which they kept in
contact and through which they were identified with the society—
all these almost cease to exist. In their place emerge the various
new images of the new country, along with the images of those
aspects of the old country to which the migrant is still attached.
However, these various images and orientations are at this stage
very general. They are mere expectations of future roles and iden-
tifications, not real institutionalized roles, groups, or symbols of
identification.
Thus, the process of migration entails not only a shrinkage in
1
This was the case in many of the Eastern European migrations to the
United States.
5
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
the number of roles and groups in which the immigrant is active,
but also, and perhaps principally, some degree of 'desocializa-
tion', 1 of shrinkage and transformation of his whole status-image
and set of values. Throughout the process of migration, the im-
migrant is in one way or another changing his values. But he does
not usually attain a coherent new set, because (a) he may as yet
have no definite new values to co-ordinate consistently into a
new hierarchy, and (b) whatever his values and their order
and consistency may be, they are not so far related to any
definite role or institutionalized behaviour. They are only general
indicators of overall expectations. Hence the migrant may be said
to live through the process of migration in an unstructured, in-
completely defined field, and cannot be sure how far his various
aspirations and expectations can be realized. This, like any non-
structured and incompletely defined situation, gives rise to some
feeling of insecurity and anxiety, as the literature on migration
amply illustrates.2 The need to overcome this insecurity usually
becomes closely connected with the initial wish to resolve the
original inadequacy which led to migration, and is important in
determining the immigrant's readiness to accept new roles and
his initial behaviour in his new country. Thus, the process of social
change inherent in most migrations ultimately involves not only
the attainment of specific goals or patterns of cultural gratification,
but also, and perhaps mainly, a resocialization of the individual,
the re-forming of his entire status-image and set of values.

Ill
It is from this standpoint that the main features of the process of
absorption can be understood. From the immigrant's point of
view, this process may be seen as one of institutionalizing his role-
expectations. This involves several different though closely con-
nected phases. First, he has to acquire various skills, to learn
to make use of various new mechanisms—language, technical
1
See A. Curie, 'Transitional Communities and Social ReconnectionS
Human Relations, 1947, p. 117.
2
See, for instance, W. Thomas and T. Znaniecki, The Polish Peasant in Europe
and America, N.Y., 1927, and any of the numerous collections of immigrant
letters, documents, etc.
6
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
opportunities, ecological orientation, etc.—without which he can
hardly exist for long in his new setting. Secondly, he has to learn
how to perform various new roles necessary in the new society.
Thirdly, he has gradually to rebuild and re-form his idea of him-
self and his status-image by acquiring a new set of values, and
testing it out in relation to the new roles available to and required
of him. We now see how the term 're-socialization' is justified.
This process of learning and re-formation of concepts is in some
ways not unlike the basic process of an individual's socialization
in any society. The immigrant, however, starts from an already
given social basis, namely, from the groups, and their role-expecta-
tions, within which the migratory process took place.
The institutionalizing of roles can thus best be seen as a process
of transformation of the immigrant's primary basic groups and
fields of social relations—those groups which are the ground of his
active participation in society. It is by the interweaving of these
groups into the social structure of the receiving country that the
immigrant's behaviour becomes institutionalized, i.e., that his
expectations become both compatible with the roles defined in the
new society and capable of being realized in it.
To analyse the process by which the immigrant's role is insti-
tutionalized, we must first set out the main general criteria of the
transformation of his primary groups. What elements of social
action does this involve?
Its first and fundamental aspect is the development of group
values and aspirations compatible with the values and roles of the
absorbing society and capable of being realized within it. At the
outset the primary groups of the immigrants usually carry with
them their former general aspirations and values, and the extent
to which these are changed to accord with the potentialities and
definitions of the new society is an important index of the degree
in which roles are institutionalized.
The internal change in the values and roles of the primary group
is, however, not enough to secure their full adaptation to the new
social structure. Side by side with it there must also take place the
formation of new channels of communication with the wider
society and of orientations towards the wider spheres of activities,
and the extension of social participation beyond the primary
group. The following seem the main criteria of such re-formation:
7
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
(a) The extension of the solidarity of these groups to the new
society by the development of identification with it, i.e., with its
ultimate values and symbols, and of a feeling of belonging to, and
actively participating in, the new society;
(b) The scope of the institutional and associational activities of
the immigrants, extending from their primary groups—participa-
tion in various associations (parties, etc.);
(c) The extent to which the immigrants' behaviour within their
primary groups is directed towards wider 'reference groups' in the
social structure—such as class and status groups, professional
standards, etc., and is accepted by these groups; and
(d) the extent to which stable social relations develop with
'older' members of the social structure, leading to the establish-
ment of new primary groups in common with them.
Only in so far as these various channels of communication be-
tween the immigrants' primary groups and the absorbing social
structure develop and continue to function smoothly may the insti-
tutionalizing of the immigrants' behaviour be said to be achieved.
This extension of the social participation and orientation of
immigrants beyond their small primary groups is not, however, a
one-dimensional process. During the migration, these groups
usually serve as the main bearers of the immigrants' social roles
and values, and the various kinds of expectations existing within
them may be somewhat undifferentiated. But once the migrants
and their groups are settled in the new country, this becomes less
true, and the immigrants seek the fulfilment of their expectations
in different directions. Here the main differentiation usually
accords with the four chief spheres or aspects of the social system
and its principal institutional frameworks. The immigrants have
to find in the new society the settings in which these various types
of expectation can be realized. This calls for a widening of the
fields of social participation, not only beyond the basic primary
and membership groups, but also in the direction of greater
variation between the respective fields of activities. It is here that
the interlinking of the immigrants' basic motivation and role-
expectation with the process of their absorption becomes strongly
marked. It is the basic motivation that determines the initial direc-
tion of their expectations and of the extension of social relations
within the receiving country.
8
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
Within this process of extension of social participation, special
importance should be attached, as we have already said, to the
establishment of channels of communication with the wider
society. Foremost among such channels are the leaders, whether
formal or informal, of various types, thrown up by the transforma-
tion of leadership in immigrant communities; new types of leaders
emerge as a result of the impact of the new social setting. The
making of contact between the immigrants and these leaders is one
of the most important aspects of the institutionalizing of their
behaviour.1
IV
To summarize then: the process of absorption, from the point of
view of the individual immigrant's behaviour, entails the learning
of new roles, the transformation of primary group values, and the
extension of participation beyond the primary group in the main
spheres of the social system. Only in so far as these processes are
successfully coped with are the immigrant's concept of himself and
his status and his hierarchy of values re-formed into a coherent
system, enabling him to become once more a fully-functioning
member of society.
As is well known, however, this process is not always either
smooth or successful. Our analysis has indicated only its general
direction and scope, but not how it is actually realized in any given
society. In order that we may analyse the more concrete processes,
an additional aspect must be considered. The institutionalization
of the immigrant's behaviour takes place not in vacuo, but within
a given social structure. Within that structure certain expectations
develop with regard to the immigrants, and certain demands are
made on them. Just as they themselves have certain images of the
new country, so has the new society, or some of its sectors, author-
ities, and so on, certain images of the immigrants, however vague,
and certain definite expectations with regard to them. While the
migration process is one of social change, the limits and possi-
bilities of this change are to a great extent fixed by the absorbing
1
See S. N. Eisenstadt: 'The Place of Elites and Primary Groups in the Pro-
cess of Absorption of New Immigrants', American Journal of Sociology, Nov., 1951,
and 'Communication Processes among Immigrants in Israel1, Public Opinion
Quarterly, Spring, 1952.
9
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
social structures, at any rate during the initial stage. That the
immigrants want to change in certain ways so as to attain certain
goals within the new society is not enough; the problem is always
how far within the new society these aspirations are capable of being
realized. By this we mean: (a) whether the roles opened up to the
immigrants and the facilities offered to them for realizing these roles
will be of a special kind (e.g., whether there will be a tendency to
any deliberate segregation, monopolizing of power-positions by
the old inhabitants, etc.); and (b) whether the absorbing social
structure will be content merely with those changes to which the
immigrants aspire; e.g., whether pressure will be put upon them
to change some of the cultural habits they wish to retain. Only in
very rare instances—some of which will be discussed in later
chapters—are the immigrants' expectations and the demands of the
absorbing social structure fully compatible from the beginning. In
most cases there is some degree of incompatibility, and this may be
of two interconnected kinds: (a) between role-expectations and
role-demands in some given (institutional) sphere of the social
structure (e.g., in the economic or political field); or (b) in the main
directions of these expectations and demands, e.g., when the im-
migrants want to attain economic roles while the demands made
on them are mainly in the political sphere. 1 It is obviously under
varying conditions in these respects that the immigrants' be-
haviour becomes institutionalized; hence, it is not necessarily a
smooth and even process.
V
We have now indicated the main variables which determine the
actual process of absorption—the immigrants' basic motivations
and role-expectations, as developed throughout the migratory pro-
cess, and the various demands made upon and facilities offered to
them in the country of absorption. We have also outlined, in a
very general way, the process of institutionalization of immigrant
behaviour.
This general analysis has already made it clear that it is not
nearly enough to look at the process purely from the standpoint of
changes in the immigrants' behaviour, attitudes, and the like,
based as they are on their motives, expectations, and so on. These
1
The same may, of course, apply to other spheres of activity.
IO
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
changes cannot be understood without a full analysis of the ab-
sorbing society, the demands it makes on the immigrant, and the
possibilities it offers him. If the ultimate success of institutionaliza-
tion, from the immigrant's point of view, is the attainment of a
new stable status and status-image, then clearly it entails full
acceptance by and participation in the absorbing society. Other-
wise the main conditions for acquiring a stable status-image are
not fulfilled, and the immigrant continues to be an alien in his new
surroundings.
In analysing the process, then, we must consider it also from
the standpoint of the receiving society, and see what are the con-
ditions for full absorption within that society. It is obvious that the
influx of any great number of immigrants exerts some pressure
on a society's structure and may entail various problems and
changes. We have, therefore, to ask: When does an immigrant, or an
immigrant group, become fully absorbed within the new setting?
In the immense sociological literature on migration several at-
tempts have been made to answer this question. Most of the works
concerned were not written for that special purpose, and provide
answers only by implication.l Only in some of them are systematic
attempts made to give an explicit answer to the question.2 Although
these different answers, explicit and implied, vary in their level of
abstraction and in the logic of their definitions, three main indices
of full absorption may be deduced from them. These are: (a) ac-
culturation; (b) satisfactory and integral personal adjustment of
the immigrants; and (c) complete dispersion of the immigrants as a
group within the main institutional spheres of the absorbing society.
The first two indices closely resemble those used in the analysis of
situations of culture-contact.3 The assumption underlying all three
1
See, for examples of the best kind of such analysis: M. Davie, World Immi'
gration, N.Y., 1936; D. Young, American Minority Peoples, N.Y., 1927; W. C.
Smith, Americans in the Making;S.Koenig, Immigrant Settlements in Connecticut, 1938.
2
See, for instance, E. Willems, Assimilacao e Populacaones Marginaes no Brasil,
1940, and the various studies published in Population Studies, 1949. A useful
summary of their implications may be found in a M.Sc. Thesis of London Uni-
versity, R. A. Graumann, Method of Studying the Cultural Assimilation of Immi-
grants, March, 1951.
3
See, for instance, M. Herskovitz, Acculturation, N.Y., 1937, and A. I.
Hallowel, 'Some Sociopsychological Aspects of Acculturation1 in R. Linton,
The Science of Man in World Crisis, N.Y., 1945.
II
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
is that the less the immigrant stands out within his new society as
having a separate identity, the more fully is he merged into it and
the more complete is his absorption. The three indices found in the
literature are varying instances of conditions of this total merging.
The first index, acculturation, is concerned principally with the
extent to which the immigrant learns the various roles, norms, and
customs of the absorbing society. The absorption and institu-
tionalizing of immigrant behaviour is seen mainly as a process of
learning, of acquiring the various habits of the new society. This
process of learning is usually, though seldom explicitly, seen under
a twofold aspect. First, there is what we may call the 'quantity' of
roles and habits learned—language, dress, religious beliefs, eco-
nomic practices, day-by-day behaviour, etc.—the catalogue can,
of course, be greatly extended. Secondly, the success and stability
of the lessons learned calls for attention. It is important not only
that the immigrants should acquire a definite set of new patterns
of behaviour, but that they should also 'internalize' them, as it
were, and continue to behave in accordance with them. Here we
touch on various phenomena of 'external' learning, of making
improper use of the new habits (e.g., the well-known instances of im-
proper use of Western dress by 'natives' in colonial countries), and
of open norm-breaking, violation of law, etc., as manifestations of
improper learning. 1
The second index, personal adjustment, is concerned rather
with the point of view of the individual immigrant and the ways in
which the new country affects his personality, his satisfaction, his
ability to cope with the various problems arising out of his new
situation. It is assumed that migration entails many frustrations
and difficulties for the migrant, and that it is mainly the degree of
his adaptation to the situation that determines the success of the
process as a whole. From this point of view, the chief emphasis has
usually been placed on various indications of personal disorganiza-
tion—suicide, delinquency, crime, mental illness, family upheaval,
and so on—all of which provide negative indices of adjustment.
Many descriptions of the process of migration abound in instances
of such negative indices, and it is the lack of them that is the chief
test of successful adaptation.
1
See Th. Sellin, Culture Conflict and Crime, Social Science Research Council
Bulletin, 1938.
12
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
The third index, institutional dispersion, relates to a rather
different set of phenomena. Its main concern is with the migrant
group as such, and its place in the social structure of the absorbing
country. It is assumed that full absorption has not taken place
unless the migrant group ceases to have a separate identity within
the new social structure. If it does not do this, it may obviously
serve as a rallying point for separatist tendencies and for parti-
cularist group identifications which may, in turn, become foci of
inter-group tensions.1 The complete loss of identity of these groups
within the absorbing social system is the best index of full absorp-
tion. From this point of view special importance attaches to the
extent of the immigrants' dispersion or concentration within the
various institutional spheres of the society. In so far as the im-
migrants are concentrated within any one sector of, say, the
economic sphere, or form separate political parties or sub-parties
of their own, or remain ecologically separate and maintain special
cultural and 'social' activities, their segregation both enables them
to maintain their separate identity, and forces on them, as it were,
a distinct identifying character. It is in this approach, together
with the first, acculturation, that the idea of a 'melting pot' found,
for instance, in some 'Americanization Studies' is most clearly
implied.2 I t assumes the view that the existence of distinct 'ethnic'
communities or groups is an indication of relative lack of success
or completeness in absorption, and of possible tensions.
Another side of this approach is the emphasis on the degree of
'social interaction' or 'social proximity' between old and new
immigrants. The assumption is that the degree of such interaction
in all institutional spheres influences the extent of specific group
identifications.3 This emphasis on 'social proximity' not only
extends the former criterion, but also brings in a new aspect, the
relative importance of 'primary group' relations. It has been
shown that dispersal within the formal, institutional spheres is not
a sufficient indication of full adaptation and absorption. Only if
1
See, for instance, the analysis in R. Schermerhorn's These Our People,
N.Y., 1951.
2
See on this E. G. Hartmann, The Movement to Americanize the Immigrant,
Columbia, 1948.
3
See, for instance, LI. Warner and L. Srole, The Social System of American
Ethnic Groups, New Haven, 1944.
13
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
there is full interaction not only on the formal plane, but also in
the less easily penetrable informal groups and cliques, has full
absorption taken place. 1
We could continue to illustrate these three main approaches,
and to give from the literature many additional descriptions of
processes of absorption. But to do so would serve no particular
purpose. Our main aim has been to point out the commonest
approaches to the problems so that they may serve as a basis for
fuller discussion.
Although all three approaches indicate important aspects of the
process of absorption, several criticisms can be made from the
point of view of systematic analysis. Personal adjustment, impor-
tant as that is, is in itself inadequate as an index. It is not clearly
related to any institutional aspect of the absorbing social struc-
ture, nor does it—even if clearly, and not only negatively, defined
—necessarily imply behaviour acceptable within that structure.
As has often beer "hown, what may seem functional from the
individual's point of view may be dysfunctional from the society's.2
We may assert, then, that it is the combination of the second and
first criteria—personal adjustment and acculturation—that gives
us an adequate index of absorption. But here also there are diffi-
culties. First, the relation between the two is not clear: as they do
not necessarily vary concomitantly, is one determined by the other,
or is their variation independent? If so, which is the more impor-
tant? Again, what degree of acculturation is required for full ab-
sorption? Many alternative roles exist in every modern society,
and there is no need for conformity and homogeneity in every
sphere; which of the spheres are the most important, the essential
conditions of full absorption? Various attempts have been made
to construct indices of cultural absorption—language, school at-
tendance, and so on—but the importance of these indices ob-
viously varies in different social settings, and equal weight cannot
be assigned to all of them. Thus acculturation as such, without
qualification, is not a sufficient index of absorption. It may seem,
however, that the third index, institutional dispersion and dissolu-

1
Op. dL
2
See R. K. Merton's discussion in his Social Theory and Social Structure, Free
Press, Glencoe, 1950, p. 47 ff.
14
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
tion of the group, gives us our answer. Acculturation may be
important in so far as it does not leave in existence any important
identifiable mass of the immigrant group. Thus the third index
would seem to be the principal one, the circumference within
which the others operate.
VI
While this third index may hold good from a purely logical
point of view, in reality it can be found fully operative only as a
limiting, and very exceptional, case. The absorption by a country
of a significant number of immigrants may be called for either by
some institutional need or deficiency in that country (e.g., lack of
some kinds of labour-power), or some external exigency or a com-
bination of both. In either case the absorption gives rise to a
change in some parts, at least, of the country's institutional struc-
ture and in the relative distribution of different elements of the
population among the various institutional spheres. To this must
be added the fact that the evolution of a new institutional struc-
ture is a lengthy process, which cannot immediately obliterate the
distinct identities of different immigrant groups, but, at most,
transforms them and incorporates them within itself.
Consequently we see that out of the absorption of a large-scale
immigration there usually develops a 'pluralistic' structure or net-
work of sub-structures, i.e., a society composed to some extent of
different sub-systems allocated to different immigrant ('ethnic')
groups—groups maintaining some degree of separate identity.
While almost always some demands are made on the immigrants
to learn new roles which are universal in the absorbing country,
there need be no such demand or expectation as regards many
secondary alternative roles, as concerns which the immigrants may
well be not only permitted but encouraged and expected to re-
main distinct from the older inhabitants.
Thus integration of these groups in the absorbing country
cannot be estimated on the basis of the exceptional case of com-
plete obliteration of distinct identities and of institutional disper-
sion alone, but we must also, perhaps especially, consider how far
the evolution of a 'pluralistic' structure does not put too heavy a
strain on the institutional framework, i.e., how far the immigrants'
specific secondary roles do not endanger the integrity of the ab-
J
5
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
sorbing society, or generate tensions which cannot somehow be
resolved within this structure.
If the analysis here suggested is valid, even if only in broad out-
line, it makes it possible to evaluate properly the numerous criteria
of adaptation used and implied in the literature. The various
indices, acculturation, and the rest, cannot be used as absolute
measuring-rods, nor can comparisons be made according to their
distribution in various countries (e.g., the extent to which immi-
grants in the United States, Brazil, or Israel acquire the new
language, attend schools, obtain positions in industry, or any other
similar indicator). Such comparisons are not valid, since they
assume equal importance for each of these criteria in all these social
settings and at all periods of their evolution; while in reality their
importance varies according to the institutionalization of roles and
the development of a positive identification in each social type.
Instead, comparison should be made through the intervening
variables of the emergence of a pluralistic society, whose concrete
manifestations differ, of course, from one society to another.
This approach implies that it is impossible for any large-scale
immigration to have so little effect on the absorbing country as to
make no change at all in its institutional contours. The assumption
that in most cases as a result of immigration a 'pluralistic' struc-
ture arises in the absorbing society, i.e., that the main principles
of allocation of roles and opportunities are to some extent
changed, makes the varied phenomena of immigration easier to
understand than does the assumption of total dispersion; although
this latter may legitimately serve as a limiting case. This assump-
tion also re-formulates somewhat the main problem of a com-
parative study of absorption. Instead of looking for universal
indices of total absorption we can focus our inquiry on the follow-
ing problems: (a) What are the types of pluralistic structure that
arise from different types of immigration? and (b) What, in various
kinds of absorbing societies, are the limits to which pluralistic
structures may develop without undermining the basic social
structure? In this way the absorption process is defined dynam-
ically as one of social change, with both integrative and disinte-
grative possibilities. To formulate the problem thus assumes that
there is no universal external index of absorption equally applic-
able to any society. In each type of absorbing society there are
16
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
different criteria, varying according to that society's basic insti-
tutional premisses. Accordingly, we can also evaluate better the
other indices we have mentioned. Acculturation, the learning of
different traits, habits, and norms, is not a universal index, since
each society may differ from others in the emphasis it places on
various patterns of behaviour. Thus in one great importance may
be attached to acquiring the national language, while in another
the most important pattern of behaviour may be in the sphere of
dress, religious conformity, etc. The process of acculturation is
governed by the extent to which a 'pluralistic' society is feasible,
and this sets the limits to the need for learning new roles.
It may be worth while to dwell in somewhat greater detail on
what is meant by a 'pluralistic' setting. Within any society there
are several distinct types of roles—'universals', 'specialities', and
'alternatives', to use Linton's nomenclature.1 The 'universals' are
incumbent on all members of the society, the 'specialities' only on
some particular groups within it, and the 'alternatives' offer a
choice to all members. These various types of role are fixed accord-
ing to basic principles of allocation within the given society, and
there is a differential allocation of roles to various groups. Total,
institutional dispersion of immigrants within any absorbing
society would imply that they are allotted all the universal roles
and perform them, and are absorbed in more or less equal pro-
portions by the various special, particularistic groups; and that
all the alternatives are open to them. The emergence of a plural-
istic society that is 'acceptable' within the limits of the absorbing
society's institutional structure would, on the other hand, imply
the performance by the immigrants of universal roles, but the
possible emergence of an immigrant body as a new particularist
group with special roles allocated to it, and actual (though not
usually legal) limitation of the scope of alternatives open to them.
Such limitation does not necessarily imply discrimination, as in
any society the actual choice of alternatives is limited and some
may even imply superior status. Within the limits of such possible
alternatives, the immigrant group might retain distinct structural
characteristics differing perhaps from those in other sectors of the
society, e.g., an emphasis on close kinship relations in the spheres
of expression and solidarity as opposed to a purely individualistic
1
1 R. Linton, The Study of Man, N.Y., 1936, pp. 272-279.
G 17
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
approach in other spheres. The question to be examined in each
case would be the limits of such special and particularist alloca-
tion of roles to immigrant groups.
This approach does not imply that complete transplantation of
an immigrant community, with all its customs, associations, and
so on, to the receiving country is feasible if they are to be absorbed.
As even the criterion of pluralistic absorption implies performance
of the universal roles of the absorbing country, such a thing is
obviously impossible. In every process of immigration and absorp-
tion there must, as we have shown earlier, be some social trans-
formation of the original group of immigrants according to the
demands of the new country. Our approach implies only that such
transformation is not a one-dimensional process with a fixed cul-
minating point. It requires first of all the acceptance and per-
formance of universal roles. Beyond this, the extension of social
participation to the various 'specialities' and alternatives existing
in the absorbing society does not necessarily occur at the same pace
within every main institutional sphere; e.g.3 in those of cultural
activity, the celebration of festivals, the use of leisure, etc., it is
possible to retain and develop special patterns of behaviour with-
out necessarily infringing the mores acceptable in the country.
The same is true in some other fields—social or political associ-
ations, economic mutual aid societies, etc. But this does not
imply that in all such cases the customs and behaviour patterns of
the old country are simply transplanted and retained. Usually a
transformation of such customs and values takes place. Instead of
their being universal and binding, as in the country of origin, they
become in the absorbing country only alternatives or specialities,
and have to be readjusted and redefined in accordance with
certain of its basic premisses. Cultural and social syncretism takes
place in various ways, as is seen in the development of various
cultural associations, festivals, and the like, all of them to a certain
extent patterned according to some of these premisses. The de-
velopment of these various activities and new symbols is not a pure
continuation of the old patterns of life, but rather their adaptation
to the values of the new country. Thus all such associations, etc.,
serve not only as foci of tradition, but also as channels of com-
munication with the absorbing country. This is all the more true
to the degree that the new universal roles are accepted by the
18
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
immigrants. We must remember that the extent to which such
particularist patterns of association and expression can be de-
veloped is not the same in every sphere of the social system. In
some (e.g., the political, military, and economic spheres in many
modern countries) there may be greater emphasis on the various
universal roles than in others. It is this uneven degree of develop-
ment of particularist roles in the different spheres that usually
precludes the maintenance of a completely closed, self-sufficient,
and separatist immigrant group within an absorbing society.1
This analysis throws some light on one of the main problems of
adaptation which has been very often emphasized in the literature
—namely, that of the structure of the immigrant group and com-
munity. 2 It has generally been implicitly assumed that the mere
existence of such a distinct community, with its distinct patterns
of behaviour, values, etc., is a sign of lack of adaptation. Numer-
ous data, however, contradict this assumption, and thus support
our analysis. It is not the mere existence of such an ethnic com-
munity but the extent to which its structure is balanced in relation
to the total social structure, that is a negative index of adaptation.
Such a balance can be maintained by an ethnic community in so
far as its members perform the universal roles of the society, its
particularist tendency agrees with the normative premisses of the
absorbing social structure, and its structural peculiarities fall
within the legitimate institutional limits of the society. In such a
case the various specific associations and ethnic leaders serve as
channels of communication with the legitimate values and symbols
of identification of the society as a whole, and as mediators of its
wider roles and values.
From the point of view of the society's status system, an ethnic
group may be said to be 'balanced' in so far as (a) its internal
status structure is not completely opposed to that of the absorbing
society, but has at least some basic premisses in common with it;
(b) the additional status premisses of the ethnic group are accepted
as legitimate within the society; and (c) the immigrants accept the
status positions allotted to them. The analysis of the different types
1
On the development of a 'closed' immigrant community into an 'ethnic'
group see the case analysis of P. V. Young, *The Russian Molokan Community
in Los Angeles', American Journal of Sociology, 1929 (Vol. XXXV), pp. 393-702.
2
See, for instance, the analysis in LI. Warner and L. Srole, op. cit.
19
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
of ethnic groups from this point of view will be one of the concerns
of our study.

VII

In the last section we suggested an index of immigrant absorp-

tion more dynamic than those usual in the literature. We have
outlined the kind of situation which may be viewed as the apex of
the process of institutionalization of immigrant behaviour. But
this process does not always end in success. Quite often there occur
various manifestations—both of unsuccessful institutionalization
and of subsequent social tension in the absorbing society—which
tend to change or transform this behaviour beyond the institu-
tionally prescribed limits. We have now to discover what are the
main types of such tensions specific to conditions of immigrant
absorption, and how they are related to the initial conditions and
characteristics of the process of group transformation and institu-
tionalization. We shall see that although these tensions do not
necessarily arise from the development of a pluralistic society, the
possibility of their appearance is inherent in such a development.
In principle the tensions in question do not differ from the types
of disintegrative, anomic behaviour found in any society. Immi-
gration does not breed any special types of such behaviour that do
not exist otherwise. Our only assumption is that, owing to certain
specific conditions inherent in the processes of immigration and
absorption, there is a possibility or tendency for some specific
types of disintegrative behaviour to be particularly marked in
such situations.
Thus we may assume that migration may give rise to any of the
main types of deviant behaviour outlined, for instance, by
Parsons,1 which, however, are directed, in different ways against
various existing social objects. As these are rather abstract, we
may indicate some of the more concrete types of deviant behaviour
which seem to be endemic in the situation of immigrant absorp-
tion. First, personal disorganization may occur owing to the
breakdown of the immigrants' primary groups. Second, there may
be various kinds of aggression and incorrigibility in relation to
social norms. Such behaviour may be directed either internally
1
T, Parsons, The Social System, pp. 256 ff,
20
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
towards the immigrant group itself (as in cases of inter-generation
tensions) or towards 'outgroups' in the absorbing society. Viola-
tion of norms may manifest itself in open criminal or semi-criminal
behaviour and competition for power, in undue emphasis on ends
without taking into account the proper institutional means of
attaining them—e.g., over-emphasis on money-spending, over-
dressing, etc.—or in inadequate performance of various roles
owing to misunderstanding and incompatibility with ingrained
attitudes. 1
Thirdly, and this is perhaps the most typical case among im-
migrants, there may be inadequate identification and solidarity
with the absorbing structure. This may take on three different
forms: (a) General apathy towards the chief values and symbols of
the new society, lack of disposition to maintain any communica-
tion with the bearers and transmitters of those values, and con-
sequent 'enclosure' within the most private spheres of social life;
(b) Rebellious particularist identification of the immigrant group,
which is opposed to the main symbols of identification of the exist-
ing society and does not accept their primary claims to loyalty (as
in various 'nativistic' movements) and consequently develops in-
ter-group tensions; and (c) * Verbal' identification with the new
country without acceptance of the institutional premisses of such
identification, i.e., the aspiration to be accepted as a member of
the new collective without performing the necessary roles, and a
consequent ritualistic over-emphasis on certain collective symbols
and behaviour patterns.
We do not claim that this is an exhaustive list of possible ten-
sions and types of disintegrative behaviour in immigrant countries;
but it would seem to include the more obvious possibilities. It may
also be that these various phenomena are not entirely distinct one
from another, and there may well be different types of inter-
connexion and perhaps even overlapping between them.
Broadly speaking, then, the main possibilities of disintegrative
behaviour in the institutionalization process lie in the field of
personal disorganization, non-performance or violation of various
institutional norms, and inadequate development of solidarity with
the new social system. These broad possibilities are inherent in the
interconnected processes of institutionalization of immigrant
1
T. Sellin, op. ciL
21
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
behaviour and the development of a pluralistic social setting in the
absorbing country.
As we have seen, the process of institutionalization is one both
of transformation of the immigrants' basic groups and of extension
of their participation and orientation beyond these groups to the
main institutional spheres of the absorbing society. Transformation
of the values and roles of the primary groups involves a process of
both learning and changing patterns of behaviour and solidarity
that may well create an unstructured, anomic field for the indivi-
dual and give rise to various forms of personal disorganization.
The transformation may undermine the cohesion and stability of
the primary group, and thus affect the individual's social and
emotional security. This may happen especially in tensions be-
tween different generations of immigrants, the disruption of a
close family life, and the like. On the other hand, if the process of
structural transformation and extension of the field of participa-
tion and orientation is impeded or unsuccessful, it may give rise
both to violation of the norms which regulate the allocation of in-
strumental facilities and to the development of particularist sym-
bols of identification. The process of extension usually also entails
the establishment of communication with various leaders, the
bearers of values and symbols, etc. It may be that such communi-
cation cannot be established, or that owing to special con-
ditions—discrimination, attachment to old cultural customs and
incompatible structural forms, and so on—-it is diverted into
rebellious, particularistic channels and symbols borne by
'unattached* leaders.
The development of a pluralistic setting in sub-groups would
mean that within the framework of the 'ethnic' group the various
universal roles of the new society are not performed; or that the
'specialities' developed by these groups have passed beyond the
limits set for alternatives within the absorbing society and are
tending to claim for themselves universal primacy and overall
loyalty and solidarity. Thus the various role-expectations and
demands made on the immigrants which fix the limits of parti-
cularist development are not fully reciprocated by the immigrants
themselves, who develop incompatible behaviour and identifica-
tions. Such a possibility is inherent, as we know, in any kind of
complex society or in any situation of rapid change; but it is
22
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
specially marked in the case of immigrant absorption and the
development of ethnic groups of different kinds.
Unsuccessful institutionalization of immigrant behaviour and
the development of various types of deviation and tension means
in the long run that the immigrants are unable to create a new,
coherent status-image and set of values in their new society. In
speaking of personality disorganization, we postulated that the
creation of a new status-image and set of values is, for the individual
immigrant, the best index of full absorption within the new
society. By definition this is possible only in so far as his status-
aspirations and image are reciprocated by that society; hence the
process of institutionalization of immigrant behaviour is the
counterpart, or pre-condition, of the attainment of a new set jof
values and a coherent status-image. If the social process is un-
successful, no such personality organization is possible. This is
most obvious in the cases of personality disorganization; but it is
also true in the case of violation of norms and development of in-
adequate solidarity and identification within the new country. As
full maintenance of the self-sufficient traditional order is hardly
ever possible, failure to develop adequate identification means
failure to attain full reciprocity within the new society or to
realize within it all one's main social aspirations. In the long run
it means that in some of the chief spheres of the social system no
adequate reciprocal equilibrium is attained.
The possibility of inadequate institutionalization of immigrant
behaviour is rooted, as we have already said, in the potential in-
compatibilities between the immigrants' group structure and their
role-expectations with regard to the new country, and the open-
ings it gives them and the demands it makes on them. This is not
the place to enumerate the actual forms such incompatibility may
take; that will be the main concern of the later chapters in which
particular cases are analysed.
One important aspect of the institutionalization process and
the development of a pluralistic setting, however, should be here
mentioned. The very nature of a pluralistic setting within a
modern more or less universalist framework involves the possi-
bility in time of further change. In time the 'ethnic' group may
well change its positions and aspire to new ones; and the balance
which has been attained at any point may be upset, either by new
23
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
social aspirations developing within the immigrant group (espec-
ially in the younger generations), or by new attitudes arising
among the 'older' inhabitants, or both. What may have been an
adequate status position for the older immigrant may be inade-
quate for the younger, who may aspire to a different type of
identification within the society; and the whole process of adapta-
tion may, as it were, begin anew.
Thus we see that institutionalization is continuous and dynamic,
and that any equilibrium attained may—though it need not—be
only temporary. This brings us to yet another aspect of our
problem. We have focused our analysis up to now on the extent
to which immigrants are successfully absorbed within a given
society, and have explained unsuccessful absorption mainly in
terms of the immigrants' own patterns of behaviour, equating
lack of success with deviant behaviour on the immigrants' part.
But this is only one side of the picture. We have already seen that,
through the evolution of some kind of pluralistic group-structure
under the impact of the immigration, the absorbing society neces-
sarily changes part at least of its institutionallayout. If this line of
argument is logically pursued, unsuccessful institutionalization
will obviously give rise not only to deviant behaviour on the part
of the immigrants, but also to some disorganization in the absorb-
ing society. This can be explained from two connected points of
view. First, after some time, usually a short one, the immigrants
become part of the absorbing society. Therefore, secondly, their
behaviour affects that society also, not only as regards the up-
holding of its norms by the immigrants, but also as regards the
behaviour of those 'old' members of the society who enter into
relations with them. Deviant behaviour is usually a reciprocal
relation between different social objects,1 and therefore such
behaviour on the part of the immigrants may well give rise to a
vicious circle of deviation in which 'old' members of the absorbing
society are involved also. This possibility is the more obvious if we
remember that inadequate institutionalization is mainly due to a
discrepancy between the immigrants' role-expectations and those
of the absorbing society.
We have therefore to widen somewhat the scope of our analysis
of the changes in absorbing societies under the impact of immigra-
1
See T. Parsons' analysis, op. cit.
24
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
tion. It is not only the development of a pluralistic setting that we
must examine, but also the possibilities of tension, disorganiza-
tion, and change due to such a development, and, ultimately,
changes in the overall structural bases of the absorbing society.
This possibility, of course, is closely connected with the continu-
ous, dynamic nature of the institutionalization process, and with
its changes in time.
VIII
We have outlined a scheme for the understanding of immigra-
tion and immigrant absorption as a social process. This scheme is
in a way descriptive and exploratory, as it is intended mainly to
serve as a basis for a comparative analysis of actual cases. It may
be viewed as a set of fundamental postulates as to the socio-
psychological nature of the processes of immigration and absorp-
tion from which more definite hypotheses can be derived. In order
to do this, we will list the main variables which seem relevant to
our problem.
The first set of variables relates to the nature of the initial crisis
in the country of origin which gave rise to the feeling of inadequacy
and to the motivation for migration. Emphasis will be laid on
exact description of the social sphere in which this feeling of in-
adequacy arises and to which the motivation is directed.
The second set is concerned with the social structure of the
immigration process, the formation of the group in which that
process is realized, and the basic roles and orientations of its
members.
Thirdly, the exact process of institutionalization of immigrant
behaviour in the new country should be separately considered,
according to the new roles and values accepted and performed by
the groups and the various degrees to which they participate in
and are identified with the new social setting. Special attention
should be paid to the various types of leaders who emerge as a
result of the transformation of the immigrant groups.
Fourthly, the institutionalization of immigrant behaviour should
be examined from the point of view of the new country. The
various possibilities open to the immigrants and the institutional
demands made on them should be described, and the compati-
bility of these with the immigrants' role-expectations estimated.
25
 CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRATION
Fifthly, the extent to which the pluralistic structure of a specific
type of immigrant community or communities emerges, its scope
and direction, should be considered, and then reviewed from the
standpoint of the allocation of different types of roles (universals,
specialities, and alternatives) within the absorbing society.
Sixthly comes the question how far different types of disinte-
grative behaviour develop, on the part of both immigrants and
'old5 inhabitants, and what are the possibilities of institutional
disorganization and change in the absorbing society.
These are the main variables of the analytical scheme proposed.
According to the fundamental postulates of our analysis, the first
four, and the connexion between them, are viewed as independent
variables; the fifth and sixth, the emergence of a pluralistic struc-
ture and of different types of tensions within it, as dependent
variables.
In the later chapters of this book we shall endeavour to apply
these variables to concrete cases, so as to see (a) whether they really
constitute an adequate analytical scheme; and (b) what laws and
generalizations can be derived from such analyses.

26