MIGRATION AND THE RECONCEPTUALIZATION OF SELF

Stephen J. Sills
Department of Sociology
Arizona State University

Sociology 591
Social Psychology
Dr. Miller-Loessi
February 21, 2003
 “Well, it is very difficult [being Mexican in the US] because you must break with all of your social
group. You really feel different. One can't feel as if you are truly N orth A merican because you just
aren't. A nd, he really can't feel Mexican either because you are not within your circle. It ‘ s very
difficult for me. “ – Alan 1

Today, there are more than 125 million individuals worldwide who reside outside

their country of origin.2 These individuals include voluntary and involuntary migrants of all

kinds and, although their every-day life experiences may be quite unique, the process of

migration involves for them a similar reinterpretation of the concept of self and identity.

This re-conceptualization may be explained to some extent by application of the Social

Psychological perspective and more precisely by the general theory of self as proposed by

Stets and Burke. 3

Social Psychology and the Nature of Self

Drawing upon the principals of philosophy and psychology, American pragmatist

William James introduced the concept of the individual self as directly influenced by society

and thus helped to define identity for the perspective later known as Social Psychology. As

he explained, “a man has as many social selves as there are individuals who carry an image of

him in their mind… he has as many different social selves as there are distinct groups of
4
persons about whose opinion he cares.” James identified key elements involved in the

construction of self such as interpersonal relationships, group membership, the social

1 From Sills, Stephen (2000).

2 Martin, Philip & Jonas Widgren (April 1996).
3 Drawing upon a formulation of Social Identity Theory from Burke, Peter & Stets, Jan (2000).
4James, William (1890).

1
interpretation of symbols and objects and he importantly defined self as a process that is

inconstant and situational.

Building upon James, George Herbert Mead, Herbert Blumer, and subsequent

Symbolic Interactionist further refined and enhanced the concept of identity. In addition to

developing a scheme of the stages of identity development, Mead is attributed with

describing the self as active and creative, rather than a passive entity shaped by the social

environment alone. Blumer’s explanation of this concept is best demonstrated in the

following diagram (Fig. 1) in which he shows that society influences the individual by

imposing norms, values, roles and statuses that are interpreted by the individual in a process

of self-interaction (reflexivity) that results in a presentation of self that is influenced by the

structure, but mediated by the individual’s own identity.

Self
NORMS Interaction

VALUES

ROLES Interpretation Behavior

STATUS

Fig. 1 – Influence of Society on the Concept of Self as Reflexive Process (Based on Fig 5-1: Blumer’s
View of the Individual, Wallace & Wolf p225)

All of these elements (group membership, interpersonal relations, interpretation of

symbols, and self reflexivity) are of importance in discussion of the concept of self

throughout the process of migration. For example, as the individual changes geographic

place she enters a different social space in which new interpersonal ties are established,

group membership is renegotiated, and new symbols and objects are encountered. Likewise,

self must be reconsidered in a reflexive process as the migrant encounters the cultural norms

2
and values of the receiving country and undergoes a shift in role expectations and status

involved with being defined as the alien or “other”.

A General Theory of Self

Useful in the analysis of migration and identity is a synthesis of Identity Theory and

Social Identity Theory discussed by Jan Stets and Peter Burke of Washington State

University. They state, “in social psychology, we need to establish a general theory of the

self, which can attend to both macro and micro processes, and which avoids the

redundancies of separate theories on different aspects of the self” (2000, p 224). In their

formulation they focus on combining the fundamental aspects of each theory including:

bases of identity (social group vs. individual role), identity salience vs. activation, and

cognitive vs. motivational processes of identity. In this paper, I will focus only on the bases

of identity and the changes to them that occur through migration.

Identity: Group Affiliation & Role Identification

Stets and Burke identify two principal bases for the formation of identity within the

theories: group membership and social roles. These bases, in this arrangement, act together

in a reflexive process. They point out that, “although the basis of self-classification is

different in the two theories (group/category versus role), theorists in both traditions

recognize that individuals view themselves in terms of meaning imparted by a structured

society” (p230).

Social Identity Theory focuses on attachment to a group. Members of social groups,

for example, share common identification established through a process of comparison

along the lines of in-group versus out-group. In-group identification is view as positive to

one’s self-esteem and is reinforced by perceived similarities in attitudes, beliefs, norms,

language, use of symbols, etc. Inversely, out-groups are those with significant differences and

3
are seen as negative for the individual’s self-esteem and self-concept. Stets and Burke

emphasize that groups operate in relation to one another within a structured society. Thus,

the relative status of the group with which one identifies may play a significant role in

identity formation.

Identity Theory, on the other hand, looks at self as occupying a role. Identity is

derived from the internalization of role expectations and the performance of that role.

Whereas self is defined by similarity to the group in the previous theory, self and other social

objects are defined in relation to the social role in Identity Theory. This then is a micro-level

mechanism which helps to shape the identity internally. Social hierarchy and position do also

have importance as the roles may be determined by the level of control of social objects

(resources) that an individual maintains. Identity then is determined by the role one assumes

and the relative control of resources inherent in that role.

HOMELAND SOCIETY
CULTURAL
INFLUNECE
Understanding of Social Role &
clear idea of Group Membership

CONCEPT OF SELF

Change in social space =

Change in expected social roles
and reference groups

RECEIVING SOCIETY

NEW CULTURAL
INFLUNECE Reinterpretation of Social Role &
Group Membership

REVISED SELF
CONCEPT

Fig. 2 – The Mechanisms of the Migration Experience and Revised Self Concept

4
The Effect of the Migration Experience on Identity

Migration involves for the individual a complete reinterpretation of self as her social

place has undergone significant change from both micro and macro forces (Fig. 2). Firstly,

one’s expected social role as the migrant is transformed from that experienced when living in

the homeland. As the “foreigner,” the “outsider,” and the “other,” in the receiving context,

the individual is forced, even in the very similar cultural settings5, to reconsider her reference

groups. For her, the generalized other of Mead has to be adapted and changed so that she may

see herself as the foreign presence. This mechanism of identity construction, though heavily

influenced by the social structure of the receiving context, involves review and re-assessment

of self that occurs in an internal process and thus on a micro-level. Meanwhile, group

membership and the naming of in-group versus out-group, also goes through a

reinterpretation. The migrant may experience this as an initial loss of self-esteem (as they

become the minority out-group) and a process of re-building sense of worth by a

strengthening of group identity by a commitment to co-national expatriates. Notably this

loyalty to the group does not stop in the first generation migrant, but may even be

strengthened in subsequent generations as migrant groups find “voice” within the social

landscape. Portes and Rumbaut (1990) call this phenomenon reactive or resilient ethnicity and

explain that it is highly dependent upon such factors as social and human capital, relative size

of the migrant population, and the nature of reception in the destination country.

The Nature of Reception and Possible Identities

The way in which a social space welcomes or rejects a particular migrant or migrant

group may be seen, at least for heuristic purposes, as a continuum from greater receptivity to

greater rejection (Fig. 3). Along this line, individual migrants must contend with expected

5
Note the musician Sting wrote a song about this entitled “Englishman in New York.”

5
roles (such as stereotypical occupations, abilities, access to resources, etc.) and out-group

definitions (usually pejorative) imposed on them by the receiving society. If that reception is

more inclusive, assimilation and amalgamation of the migrant self to the majority culture

may be expected. The eventual self-concept that develops among those who are most similar

in social characteristics and culture to the receiving population, and therefore the most

welcomed, will be logically most like that of the host citizens. For evidence we may look to

early 20th century European migrants (Irish, Italians, and European Jews) in America who in

NATURE OF RECEPTION

GREATER GREATER
INCLUSION EXCLUSION

Assimilation & Segmented Assimilation & Return Migration, on-

Amalgamation Transnationalism (Including ward migration, &
orthogonal biculturalism, Enclave (limited
blending of cultures, possibility of mobility)
hybridization, and creation
of ‘new’ cultures)

Fig. 3 – The Nature of Reception and Possible Identities

a little less than a generation were incorporated into mainstream society and today identify

themselves as Americans.6 Conversely, those who are least welcome maintain a sense of

“otherness” that is pervades their concept of self both in their expected social role and their

group membership. This exclusion and rejection may lead to return migration, onward (step)

migration, or the formation of an ethnic enclave. It may also lead the migrant to develop a

negative self-concept and an eventual rejection of the homeland culture in favor of an

6
One may also look to “invisible” migrants such as Mainland Chinese in Taiwan, Canadians in the US, etc.

6
attempt at assimilation. For example, Rosa a middle-aged woman who has lived in the US

since she was a teen and married a non-Hispanic white man, says she has purposively

discarded many of her cultural practices in an attempt to integrate more easily: She explains,

“I am Mexican. Firstly, I was born in Mexico and have family and ancestors in Mexico. My

blood is Mexican…my language, more than anything my language… I have tried to get rid

of Mexican traditions a little. If I compare myself with my mother and my sisters [in Mexico]

I am completely different.” 7

Between these poles of acceptance and rejection lies a social space that includes such

possibilities as segmented assimilation (gravitation toward a subdivision of the society that is

most like one’s own group) or transnationalism. Transnationalism may include various

patterns like biculturalism, blended or hybridized cultures, or even the formation of new

cultural identities. In these cases the migrant may have various selves that are dependent

upon the social place that she occupies. When among co-nationals she may have one sense

of identity, while among the majority population she may present another entirely separate

self. This situational nature of identity is very apparent in an interview with one Mexican

migrant in which he says, “I believe I have no real identification... I am able to adapt, from

Latino to Hispanic to Mexican-American, depending on the situation and who the people

are that I am talking to. Actually, I have been able to take on all of those identities.”8

Conclusions and Implications for Further Study

We have seen that identity is influenced by the social structure in both micro-level

processes of internalization of social roles and in macro-level processes of group affiliation.

This identity formation is, however, ongoing and may involve significant revision due to life

experiences such as migration. After a reassignment of roles and a reinterpretation of

7
Sills (2000).
8
Ibid.

7
reference group, the migrant may develop an identity that is more or less similar to that of

the host community. This process is dependent in part on the nature of reception of the

migrant’s group in the receiving context.

Further examination of the mechanisms of identity construction among migrants is

needed. One proposed means of empirical investigation would be cross-cultural,

comparative case studies of migrant communities. These case studies should incorporate the

principal perspectives of self studies in the understanding that identity is a reflexive process

that is situationally located within a structured society and involves both individual as well as

collective agency. Data collection, then, would require observations on the presentation of

self in the receiving context (situational approach), structured self-reflection by migrants

(structural approach such as the Twenty Statements Test), narratives of the migration experience

(biographical-historical approach), and evidence of group identity construction (interpersonal

9
approach).

9
See Chapter 2 of Cook, Fine & House (1995).

8
References

Burke, Peter & Stets, Jan (2000) Identity Theory And Social Identity Theory. Social
Psychology Quarterly. 63:3. pp 224-237.

Faist, Thomas (200) The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and
Transnational Social Spaces. Oxford: England. Oxford University Press.

Gecas, Viktor & Burke, Peter (1995). "Self and Identity" Pp. 41-67 in Sociological Perspectives on
Social Psychology, edited by Karen S. Cook, Gary Alan Fine, and James S. House.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1995.

James, William (1890), U.S. psychologist, philosopher. The Principles of Psychology, vol. 1, ch. 10
as cited in Peter Adler and Patricia A. Adler, "Symbolic Interactionism," in Jack D.
Douglas et al, ed., Introduction to the Sociologies of Everyday Life. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon, 1980, pp. 20-61.

Martin, Philip & Jonas Widgren (April 1996). International Migration: A Global Challenge
Population Bulletin, 50:1. Online at: http://www.prb.org/

Portes, Alejandro & Rumbaut, Ruben (1995). Immigrant America: A Portrait. Berkeley:
University of California Press.

Ritzer, George (1996). Classical Sociological Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sills, Stephen (2000) Social, Economic and Symbolic Ties: An Analysis of Transnationalism
In Mexican Communities. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Arizona State University.

Wallace, Ruth & Wolf, Alison (1980). Contemporary Sociological Theory. Englewood Cliffs:
NJ. Prentice-Hall, Inc.

9
This document was created with Win2PDF available at http://www.daneprairie.com.
The unregistered version of Win2PDF is for evaluation or non-commercial use only.