Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dedications
Miu Chung Yan:
Dedicates this book to Florence Lee and to his siblings.
Uzo Anucha:
With much love and gratitude to all Anucha Land Residents: Dr. Theo Anucha, my
co-conspirator in life; our children—Adanna, Jaachi, Chizara, Alfred and Arielle; and my
niece Clementine.
Contributors
Dr Uzo Anucha is an associate professor at the School of Social Work at York University.
Uzo’s community-engaged scholarship, teaching, and professional activities are centred
on promoting equity and access for diverse communities within local, national, and inter-
national contexts. Her current research is focused on critical youth work. She is the Pro-
vincial Academic Director for the Youth Research and Evaluation eXchange, a provincial
project with regional hubs in five Schools of Social Work across Ontario funded by the
Ontario Ministry of Children and Youth Services (www.youthrex.com). Uzo has served
on a variety of community-based professional boards, including serving on the Board of
Accreditation of the Canadian Association of Schools of Social Work.
Adanna Anucha received a Bachelor of Social Work degree from the School of Social
Work at York University and a Master of Social Work from the Factor-Inwentash Faculty
of Social Work at the University of Toronto. Adanna’s practice background includes ex-
tensive experience in community-based organizations that work to expand opportunities
for racialized youth. Mirroring her community work, her research is focused on working
collaboratively with communities on social action research projects that advance equity
and social justice for youth and their families.
Maria Bernard is a Ph.D. student in Social Work at York University. Her research focuses
on social inclusions of racialized youth, challenges “progressive” discourses of inclusion,
and examines how they can potentially reinforce institutional racism within the social
sector. Maria brings to her research over seven years of social work experience in youth-
driven organizations, focusing on racialized youth issues in marginalized communities
in Toronto. Her research contributes to knowledge on anti-racism and decolonial knowl-
edges, and strengthens conceptions of social inclusion and equity in Canada.
Matthew Chin is a doctoral candidate in Social Work and Anthropology at the University
of Michigan. His dissertation examines the role of the arts in the relationship between
queer and transgendered people of colour and community organizations and urban gov-
ernment institutions in Toronto. He is also an ethnographic researcher at Columbia Uni-
versity Medical Center investigating issues of sexual violence on college campuses. His
research interests include the arts, urban ethnography, community organizing, critical
Contributors ix
ethnic studies, social policy, queer studies, community-based research, critical disability
studies, temporality, feelings/affect/emotions, and political economy.
Gabrielle Daoust completed her Master of Social Work degree at the University of Calgary
and is a Ph.D. candidate in international relations at the University of Sussex, UK. Her
research areas include international relations, conflict and peace-building, and education,
and she has experience on a range of research projects linked to older adults, immigration,
and diversity issues.
Dr Julie Drolet is associate professor in the Faculty of Social Work at the University of
Calgary. Her research and teaching interests are in the areas of international social work,
including the settlement and integration of immigrants and refugees, climate change and
disasters, resilience, field education, and social protection initiatives. She is co-investigator
in Pathways to Prosperity (p2pcanada.ca), a research alliance dedicated to fostering wel-
coming communities that promote the economic, social, and civic integration of migrants
and minorities in Canada. Julie has published extensively in international social work and
social development with over 30 journal articles, 15 book chapters, and five books.
Dr David Este is a professor in the Faculty of Social Work at the University of Calgary. The
majority of his research has focused on different aspects of the immigrant/refugee experi-
ence in Canada. He has also being involved in research studies that examined the health
and well-being of people of African descent in Canada, and HIV/AIDS. David is co-author
of one book and co-editor of three volumes, and has published several journal articles and
book chapters focused on issues related to immigration and diversity.
Dr Yahya El-Lahib is a long-time disability activist and assistant professor in the Faculty
of Social Work, University of Calgary. Yahya’s work questions the colonial North/South
power dynamics and relations that play out through the assumed universality of knowl-
edges produced in the Global North and their presumed applicability to Global South con-
texts and realities. Yahya’s research aims to bridge theories and practice models from the
Global South and Global North in order to respond to the knowledge gaps and limitations
inherent in transnational issues, such as the intersection of disability and immigration.
Dr Usha George is professor and dean, Faculty of Community Services, Ryerson Uni-
versity. As early as 1996, she developed and taught a graduate course titled Social Work
with Immigrants and Refugees. The focus of Dr George’s work is social work with diverse
x Contributors
Dhvani Katakia received a Master of Public Health (MPH) degree from the University of
Toronto, where she was also enrolled in the Strategic Training Program in Public Health
Policy of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Currently, Dhvani is a Junior
Fellow at the Wellesley Institute, doing action-oriented research on improving quality of
housing to reduce childhood asthma in Toronto’s low-income neighbourhoods.
Hannah Kia is a Ph.D. student at the University of Toronto’s Dalla Lana School of Public
Health. Her research primarily addresses health-care access issues among older lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) adults, and in 2015 she was awarded a CIHR
Doctoral Research Award to pursue her interests in this area. Prior to beginning her doc-
toral studies, Hannah was involved in a research project on the experiences and needs of
lesbian, gay, and bisexual newcomers in British Columbia and practised for close to five
years as a social worker in health care.
Dr Daniel Lai is Chair Professor of Social Work and Gerontology and Head of the
Department of Applied Social Sciences, Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Previously,
he was a professor at the Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary. Between 2003
and 2009, he was Alberta Health Scholar funded by the Alberta Heritage Foundation for
Medical Research. He was also Killam Annual Professor for 2014–15. Daniel has years
of research and teaching experience and expertise in the areas of social work with aging
immigrants, cultural diversity issues, health and aging, and social policy and program
Contributors xi
development issues. Daniel has published extensively, with over 80 peer-reviewed journal
papers, and has served on the Alberta Demographic Planning Commission overseeing the
public c onsultation process that led to the Population Aging Policy Framework in Alberta.
Bing Yu Li, M.Ed., is a Ph.D. student at the Department of Social Work and Social Ad-
ministration, University of Hong Kong. Her main research interests are post-structural
theories and theories of social exclusion, with a focus on their implications for social work
practice. She is also a member of the SSLD practitioner team working on the Dementia
Program, the Early Childhood Education Initiative, and the Immigrant Settlement and
Social Inclusion Project.
Lun Li is a Ph.D. candidate at the Faculty of Social Work of the University of Calgary. He
received his bachelor degree in social work and master’s degree in sociology (social work
focus) from Fudan University in China. Lun’s research interests include health and aging,
family caregiving, cultural diversity issues, and social work practice with aging popula-
tions. Lun’s dissertation research focuses on the mental health of and workplace support
for employed family caregivers for aging people.
Dr Sarah Maiter is a professor and former graduate program director in the School of
Social Work at York University. Dr Maiter brings extensive practice experience in child
welfare and children’s mental health services to her teaching and research. Her program
of research is focused on policy and services for members of diverse ethnocultural/racial
communities, particularly in the areas of child welfare, mental health, and youth mental
health. She has served on the board of the American Professional Society on the Abuse of
Children (APSAC), as chair of the Diversity Committee, and as an executive member. Her
publications focus on child welfare policy and practice, child welfare services for diverse
ethno-racial families, immigrant mental health, and research methodology.
Anh Ngo is a doctoral candidate at the School of Social Work, York University. Her re-
search is closely connected to her 10 years of practice with the Southeast Asian commu-
nities of Toronto in settlement and mental health. She continues to be actively involved
in the community through research projects with local organizational partners. Her doc-
toral research explores the complex post-colonial relations of immigrant diasporas with
host nations, specifically in the interaction between immigrant identities and the making
of the national identity.
xii Contributors
Christa Sato is currently completing her MSW in the Faculty of Social Work at the Uni-
versity of Calgary. She is working as a research assistant on various projects related to
immigration, diversity, and social justice.
Dr A. Ka Tat Tsang is the founder of the SSLD (Strategies and Skills Learning and De-
velopment) System. The key purpose of his practice and scholarly work is to build an in-
tegrative system of knowledge and skills for human services in the globalized context.
He is actively engaged with practice on multiple levels, including personal, family, group,
organizational, community, and policy work. He immigrated to Canada in 1989, and has
developed many innovative programs serving immigrants and refugees. He is currently
a professor and Factor-Inwentash Chair in Social Work in the Global Community at the
University of Toronto.
Jane Wang received her MSW from the University of Toronto. Her decade-long non-profit
work speaks to her commitment to community development and social justice. She is
familiar with the intersectional complexities of newcomer experiences through her com-
munity work in Ottawa and Toronto. Jane has been a research assistant at the United Way
of Greater Toronto, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, and Raising the
Roof. She is currently a research associate with YouthREX (the Youth Research and Eval-
uation eXchange).
Ruth Marie Wilson is a doctoral student at the Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work at
the University of Toronto. Her dissertation explores the pluri-temporality of immigrants
juggling the demands of work, family, and integration. Ruth’s research interests include
the racialization of poverty, immigrant integration and settlement, time and temporality,
social policy, immigration policy and the welfare state, and community organizing. Her
social work experience includes seven years in community development, four of which
Contributors xiii
were spent as a community-based researcher for the Income Security, Race and Health
Project, led by Access Alliance Multicultural Health and Community Services.
Dr Miu Chung Yan is a professor at the School of Social Work of the University of British
Columbia. As an applied qualitative researcher, he has been a principal investigator and
co-investigator of over a dozen studies on the settlement needs and challenges of immi-
grants and refugees and on youth from immigrant families. He has also been studying the
roles and functions of place-based community organizations as a social integration and
community-building mechanism. Findings of his studies have been extensively published
in both Canadian and international scholarly journals.
Introduction
Introduction
To understand the immigration reality of Canada, we must situate its immigration his-
tory in the colonialization of Aboriginal peoples who have been living here for many
thousands of years. The arrival of European explorers in the fifteenth century turned the
European search for a new trade route to the Far East into a colonialization process that
has led to the Canada that exists today. Waves of migrants from various parts of the world
have immigrated and settled in this country from that time. Thus, we can reasonably say
all non-Aboriginal people in Canada are either themselves immigrants or descendants of
previous immigrants whose arrival to Canada is part of the colonialization process.
While we must acknowledge this colonial legacy as part of the immigration history
of Canada, we also need to recognize the diversity among the immigrants—in terms of
when, where, and how they arrived—who have played a role in building this country.
When we were working on the manuscript of this text, the Canadian government
had already received and welcomed over 25,000 Syrian refugees to Canada. The public
was generally in favour of the government’s action. Indeed, in a 2014 survey sponsored
by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) (2014), it was found that a majority of
Canadians welcomed all ethnicities to Canada. However, in regard to the economy, public
opinion was divided. It is not unusual to hear in the media that immigrants and refugees are
here to take advantage of our society. Among the respondents to the CBC survey, 30 per cent
tended to think that immigrants would take their jobs. Quite contrary to this negative per-
ception, immigrants’ contributions to Canadian society are manifold. Economically, they
are an asset, contributing their knowledge, skills, and experience to our labour markets.
As consumers and taxpayers, they help sustain the revenue of social programs. Further-
more, their many cultural backgrounds and ethnicities add diversity to the cultural fabric
of our society, thereby enriching it.
Despite their contributions to Canadian society and the positive results of public
polls, studies have continually found that immigrants and refugees are placed in disad-
vantaged and vulnerable positions. Very often, their being new to this society has been
2 Introduction
used to deprive them of access to equal opportunities and resources in social, cultural,
economic, and political arenas. In this text, we argue that being new is constructed and
used as a social category to justify the marginalization of many immigrants and refugees
in Canada. Thus, it is critical for human services professionals who strive for social justice
to understand the oppressive effects of being new and how these effects lead to the multiple
difficulties that many immigrants and refugees experience.
Ironically, while newcomers are the major source of population growth in Canada,
as Bile et al. (2010) observe, there is a notable scarcity of social work literature on issues
related to immigrants and refugees. As the first Canadian attempt to fill this gap in the
literature, this text is a collection of the expertise and wisdom of social work scholars and
practitioners who have studied, written about, and worked with immigrants and refugees.
Its purpose is to prepare students of different human services to better serve different
groups of immigrants and refugees. Although all the contributors to this book are social
work scholars or practitioners, we use “human services” as a generic term to refer not
only to social work professionals but to all helping professionals who work in the health-
care and education systems, institutional care facilities, government social service depart-
ments, non-government organizations, and elsewhere. Different helping professions may
differ in their focus. But they also share many common points in terms of theory, practical
approach, the substantive needs of service recipients, organization, and policy. The con-
tributors to this text examine the essential and relevant materials applicable to different
human services professionals working with immigrants and refugees.
Our Terminology
To simplify the following discussion, we tend to use the terms “immigrant,” “refugee,”
“newcomer,” and “permanent resident,” interchangeably. Each of these terms bears a
specific meaning. “Immigrant” refers to people who leave one country and presumably
permanently settle in another. Both “permanent resident” and “refugee” have an admin-
istrative meaning: the Canadian government uses “permanent resident” to designate all
foreign-born people who are granted the right of abode in Canada; “refugee” is usually
used to designate asylum seekers who meet a set of administrative criteria agreed to and
specified in the United Nations’ 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol. Very often,
permanent residents are also called “newcomers,” which signifies not only that they are
foreign but also recent arrivals to the country. The new Trudeau regime renamed the de-
partment responsible for immigration from Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC)
to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). Since most of the government
documents cited in this text were published under the former departmental name, both
names are used in many chapters.
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
60
70
80
90
00
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
00
10
18
18
18
18
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
Figure I.1 Canada, Permanent Residents, 1860–2014
Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada (2015).
in the 1990s, and since then Canada has consistently received over 200,000 immigrants
every year. As a result, between 1990 and 2014, 5,925,300 permanent residents landed in
Canada. As indicated by the results of the 2011 General Household Survey, 20.6 per cent
of the Canadian population (6,775,800 people) are foreign-born (Statistics Canada, 2013).
This places Canada at the top of the G8 countries in terms of proportion of foreign-born
population.
Canada is also one of the few countries with a long tradition of providing formal
support to newcomers. Government-funded settlement services supporting immigrants
date back as far as the pre-Confederation period (Vineberg, 2012). However, not until
1974 did the Canadian government officially launch the nationwide Immigrant Settlement
and Adaptation Program (ISAP), whose objective was “to help newcomers settle and inte-
grate into Canadian society so that they can participate in Canadian life as soon as pos-
sible” (Citizenship and Immigrant Canada, 2007, p. 33). Through a vast service network
made up mainly of non-government organizations, ISAP provides pre- and post-arrival
information referral, language learning and skills development, employment-related as-
sistance, community connection, needs assessment and referrals, and other support ser-
vices addressing settlement concerns. The immigrant settlement services are the first line
of formal support for newcomers to Canada.
For many immigrants, the process of leaving their home country to settle in a host
country is complex and challenging, and always intertwined with their own and their
family’s various socio-economic and developmental needs. Very few people immigrate to
Canada alone. Table I.1 shows the breakdown of permanent residents in 2014 by age and
gender. Despite the fact that Canadian immigration policies always favour immigrants
of the most productive age group, mainly 25–44, their families—spouses, children, and
parents—are always part of the immigration movement. Naturally, immigrants to Canada
are not only diverse in terms of age and gender. They are also diverse in ability, sexual
4 Introduction
orientation, personality, language skills, culture, economic capacity, and many other as-
pects. Their needs and the challenges they face are multi-faceted. To meet these needs and
to overcome these challenges, they may, willingly or unwillingly, seek help from different
sources, including human services.
Professional Responses
Once landed in Canada as permanent residents, immigrants and refugees are entitled to
all the formal social support provided by publicly funded organizations, for instance,
schools, hospitals, child protection agencies, neighbourhood houses, family centres,
senior centres, and many others. In other words, because of the vast numbers of newcom-
ers residing in our society, most human services practitioners will inevitably come into
contact with newcomers in their work setting. It is thus important that practitioners have
the knowledge and skills necessary to support newcomers. However, instead of dealing
with the issue of being new, human services educators and professionals tend to focus on
the cultural and racial issues of the increasingly racially diverse newcomer population.
Indeed, Canada’s ethno-racial minority population is experiencing rapid growth. In
2011, a General Household Survey found that almost one in five Canadians (19.1 per cent)
identified themselves as a visible minority (Statistics Canada, 2013). This growth is actually
a result of changes in immigrant origins. Since the late 1970s, the source of immigrants to
Canada has shifted from Europe to Asia. Roughly 60 per cent of the immigrants who arrived
between 2001 and 2011 came from Asia (Statistics Canada, 2013). Canadian citizens born in
European countries, who dominated immigration to Canada prior to the 1970s, now repre-
sent only 13.7 per cent of the immigrant population. As immigration from non-European
countries increases, ethnic minorities, particularly those who are also visible minorities,
have become a major source of population growth in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2005b).
cross-cultural approaches have been explored, developed, and consolidated (Tsang &
George, 1998). Cultural competence and anti-racism have become popular cross-cultural
approaches in Canada in working with ethno-racially diverse populations, many of whom
are immigrants. While these cross-cultural approaches are helpful, research indicates
that they do not sufficiently prepare helping professionals to support the settlement and
integration of newcomers (Yan & Chan, 2011).
In a survey examining the capacity of social workers in British Columbia to work
with immigrants and refugees, many respondents indicated that at school and at work
they were trained or constantly retrained to practise cultural competence and anti-racist
approaches (Yan & Chan, 2011). However, most respondents also reported that they were
not trained in immigration policies, the needs of immigrants and refugees, and the ser-
vices available to them. At work, they seldom discuss or pay attention to service users’
immigrant background. Very often, the focus is on the culture, ethnicity, and race of ser-
vice users. These approaches tend to minimize, if not ignore, the detrimental effects of im-
migrants’ identity and their lived experience of being new. In addition, while focusing on
culture, ethnicity, and race, human services training, in school and the workplace, further
reinforces ignorance of the impacts of being new on ethno-racial newcomers, particularly
during their settlement period.
To better prepare human services practitioners to serve the increasing numbers of
newcomers to Canada, professional training programs must include courses that cover
areas such as immigration policies; the process, needs, and challenges of migration; the
settlement and integration process; and the resources available to newcomers. In 2012,
the Canadian Association of Social Work Education (CASWE) finally recognized the im-
portance of being new as a form of marginalization by including immigration status and
newcomer population in its guiding principles. In its Standards of Accreditation for social
work education programs, it states that:
9. Standards encourage and support diversity and social justice in all aspects/
domains of social work programs. Diversity throughout this document refers
to a range of characteristics including, but not limited to: age, colour, culture,
disability/non-disability status, ethnic or linguistic origin, gender, health status,
heritage, immigration status, geographic origin, race, religious and spiritual be-
liefs, political orientation, gender and sexual identities, and socioeconomic status.
Given the long history of immigration in Canada, these two new inclusions are surpris-
ingly late. However, they are a significant acknowledgement of the importance of the
immigration reality in Canadian society. Regardless of the source countries of newcomers,
being new is one of the social categories that put immigrants at a disadvantage. Human
services professionals therefore must pay as much attention to the oppressive effects of
being new as to other social categories when serving vulnerable populations.
6 Introduction
To better understand the difficulties caused by being new in a host country, we need
to appreciate that being new does not only signify the current geographical location and
social position of immigrants and refugees. It also implies a journey through which they
have become new. Each immigrant’s journey is a story that starts with where they come
from, a place they knew well, how they came to their current location, and how they might
settle in a place where they are seen as strangers or newcomers. Through the chapters
of this book, the reader will hear the stories of many different newcomers. Each story is
unique. However, they are similar in a few important aspects of the migration journey. In
the following section, we present a conceptual map that will help the reader to understand
the factors shaping immigrants and their migration process.
Pre-migration Phase
For most migrants, the pre-migration phase takes place in their home country, where they
were born, grew up, and even formed a family. With the exception of the very young, most
migrants are socialized, acculturated, educated, and trained in their home country. They
bring with them to the host country the baggage of knowledge, memory, emotion, and
lived experience of the physical, cultural, social, political, judicial, and economic systems
of their home country. Although the term “baggage” may be understood negatively as
something fixed and problematic, here we would like to emphasize that baggage can rep-
resent both resources that help and constraints that limit migrants’ ability to make sense of,
access resources in, and adapt to the host country. Baggage is always expandable. It grows
as we learn and experience. When working with newcomers, it is important to know and
understand where they came from and what they have brought with them to this new
country. We can roughly divide baggage into two categories: structural and personal.
Structural Baggage
Structural baggage is knowledge and experience of different macro-systems of the home
country. First and foremost is the natural environmental system—climate, landscape, and
urbanization—of the home country. This system shapes everyday life to a great extent,
from what to grow and eat, how to dress, and how to schedule schooling and work to
what outdoor activities to pursue in different seasons. Imagine immigrants from tropi-
cal or sub-tropical regions, such as the Philippines or Nigeria, coming to the Canadian
city where you live in December. What effects would the climate have on their physical
well-being and the way they dress? What challenges would they face when moving around
the city without a car? What kinds of food would they be able to find in the supermarket?
Most newcomers settle in cities with a similar urban landscape: high-rise buildings, roads
with heavy traffic, shopping centres, and conveniences powered by electricity. For new-
comers from rural areas, small cities, or refugee camps, navigating the urban landscape
and adapting to the urban ways of life can be daunting.
Each country has its own politico-judicial, economic, and social welfare systems.
These can be influential on people’s migration decisions. On one hand, the unfavourable
socio-politico-economic conditions of the home country may motivate many people to em-
igrate. People may leave to escape systems and conditions they dislike and that sometimes
even threaten their lives. On the other hand, this lived experience also becomes part of their
cultural baggage, which they carry with them to a new country. Politico-judicial, economic,
and social welfare systems shape and are shaped by the cultural beliefs and practice of local
people through socialization at home and indoctrination from schools and other public media.
Culture plays a vital role in defining who we are and informing how we understand
and interact with each other. In immigration studies, some argue that if the cultures of
the home and the host countries are similar, immigrants will find settling and integrating
easy and smooth. However, the validity of this argument depends on how we define “cul-
ture.” There are many definitions. One of the classics is offered by Tylor, who suggests that
culture is “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom
and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (Tylor,
1958, p. 1). This is a comprehensive but contestable definition. Despite all the criticisms,
it at least has an important message: that culture is every part of a society that defines its
8 Introduction
membership. This implies that culture is also a symbol representing its membership, the
meaning of which involves a similar interpretation among members (Geertz, 1973).
These two theoretical understandings of culture are commonly used in the human
services literature. Yet they have also attracted much criticism, which has raised a few
questions about the meaning of culture. At least three of these questions are important for
human services professionals to consider when working with immigrants and refugees.
First, is culture fixed and static? If culture is the collective response of a group of
people to the physical world, both natural and human-made, then it should be in constant
evolution simply because the physical world is in a constant state of change. For instance,
in many countries where traditional agrarian culture gave way to industrialization and
urbanization, this development created a different physical context that required different
collective responses from those who lived in urban environments and those who moved
to them. It is not unusual to note that people living in urban and rural environments
within the same country or region can hold distinctively different cultural practices and
even beliefs. The technological advances of the last three decades have further destabilized
many traditional cultures and rendered many cultural practices obsolete. In other words,
the culture of a society is not fixed and stable. Instead, culture is a fluid and unstable entity
that cannot be essentialized.
Second, can we assume that people from the same cultural group must always share
the same interpretation of their culture? The members of a society (or a cultural group)
are not homogeneous. They are diverse in many aspects: age, gender, ability, class, sexual
orientation, personality. All these factors shape their personal experience, understanding,
and interpretation of the culture of their society. In other words, the meaning of cultural
symbols can vary among members of the same cultural group. Some may even argue that
the so-called shared understanding and practice of a culture can be seen as a measure of
normalization that is used to oppress and marginalize those who do not conform to the
majority norm. For instance, in many countries, homosexuality is considered abnormal.
Many people who identify as homosexual are afraid of disclosing their sexual orientation.
The fear (and reality) of persecution marginalizes people of non-normative sexual orien-
tation who may find their own culture oppressive.
Third, is culture erasable? When someone moves, settles, and integrates into a new
cultural environment, does she or he lose the culture of the home country? Can a person
leave the home country and its culture behind? As Swidler (1986) suggests, when we ac-
quire a piece of a new culture, we save it somewhere in our mind, which operates like a
toolkit. Emphasizing the agency of human beings, Swidler argues that different pieces
of culture acquired through socialization and lived experience are used strategically to
make sense of and adjust to contextual demands arising in any given situation (Swidler,
1986). When we run out of suitable tools, we pick up new ones, however fun or painful
the process may be. So, if culture is a toolkit, it is expandable. In other words, through
accumulating different cultures, people are able to develop multiple cultural repertoires
that allow them to adapt and adjust to different cultural environments and expectations.
Although Tylor’s definition of culture does not mention language, it is an import-
ant vehicle with which to express and transmit culture. As some linguistic anthropol-
ogists suggest, “[l]anguage depends on culture; language organizes culture” (Jourdan
& Tuite, 2006, p. 5). Because of the long colonial history of Europe, English and French
Yan/Anucha: Setting the Context for Human Services Practice 9
have become the official languages of many developing countries where many dialects
are still spoken. Immigrants with the relevant language skills may prefer to move to
Canada and find it easier to settle and integrate. In contrast, immigrants whose home
country has a different language from their host country may need to either prepare
before leaving their home country or spend more time learning the new language later
in the post-migration phase.
Personal Baggage
Every person is a unique individual whose lived experience is shaped by social character-
istics such as gender, age, ability, and sexual orientation. Personality also affects how one
responds and adjusts to a new environment (Fang, Friedlander, & Pieterse, 2015; Ramd-
honee & Bhowon, 2012). For instance, studies have found that immigrants with a neurotic
personality tend to have more difficulties with interpersonal interaction outside their own
ethnic group (Fang et al., 2015) or they adopt an adaptation strategy that marginalizes
them (Ramdhonee & Bhowon, 2012).
Immigrants’ socio-economic status in their home country can determine their ex-
perience of the migration and post-migration phases. Highly educated and skilled indi-
viduals, in demand in the global labour market, tend to experience a smoother migration
process and receive a warmer welcome from their host country (Sassen, 2007). Very often,
these individuals are from the (mostly male) elites of their home country, they have a pres-
tigious occupation, and have mastered English or French, two of the most commonly used
languages in the world. They are the recruitment targets of many countries that need im-
migrants to fill the gaps in their labour market or to invest in their economy. Indeed, most
countries’ immigration policies explicitly prefer wealthy, highly educated and skilled,
healthy, and productive immigrants who are expected to be able to benefit the local econ-
omy. This preference is certainly discriminatory to women and people with disabilities.
Patriarchal cultures are found around the globe. In many developing countries,
women are marginalized and placed in a disadvantaged position in terms of education
and work opportunities and family responsibilities. As a result, women are trapped in a
low socio-economic status and have less formal education. Similar challenges are often
experienced by people with disabilities. As a result, both groups are very often also dis-
criminated against by host countries, which do not recognize them as principal applicants
for immigration. They are positioned as dependants of a male, able-bodied applicant. These
gender- and ability-biased preferences have a direct impact not only on the migration phase
but also on the post-migration phase. While these biased preferences reinforce, intention-
ally or unintentionally, the unequal conditions of the home country, immigrants may also
bring with them a belief in inequality and an acceptance or expectation of such beliefs and
practices to the host country, which has a different set of cultural beliefs and practices. As
a result, they may find it hard to adjust to the host country in the post-migration phase.
Migration Phase
The migration phase is the period between leaving the home country and reaching the
host country. The pathways of migration vary. They depend on a few key factors. First, is
it a voluntary migration? In general, the term “immigrant” is used to denote individuals
10 Introduction
who voluntarily migrate from one country to another. Very often, their move is planned
and they make preparations before leaving for the new country. With a few exceptions,
mostly international students or temporary foreign workers who apply for their immi-
grant status while already residing in the host country, most immigrants are first required
to go through an application process while still residing in their home country. How-
ever, most of the global stock of migrants are forced to leave (or to flee) their home coun-
try because of natural catastrophe (e.g., famines or flooding) or human-made disaster
(e.g., wars and political persecution). These migrants are called refugees. Most of the time,
their departure from the home country is sudden and involves no well thought out plan or
preparation. Most refugees do not move far from their home country. As the International
Organization for Migration reports, in 2010, 81 per cent of refugees were living in devel-
oping countries (IOM, 2013), mostly those adjacent to their home country.
Second, do they have resources that facilitate their migration? While most refugees
have little choice about where to settle, immigrants tend to take the initiative and choose
a destination. Very often they may have some prior knowledge of that destination. This
knowledge can come from various sources: previous visits; print, television, and the Inter-
net; and hearsay from friends and relatives who have already migrated to the destination.
However, despite the myriad information available today online, many people are still
under-informed or even misinformed before they reach their host country.
Third, do they have local connections in the destination? Connections with friends
and relatives residing in the destination are an important resource in all three phases.
Connecting with friends and relatives in the host country can be a decisive factor that
affects the migration decision, prepares the move, and aids the settling process. Many
refugees are also drawn by friends and relatives when they have the opportunity to choose
a country of refuge.
Last but not least, under what status did a newcomer enter the host country, and in
particular Canada? Most countries with a systematic plan to absorb foreign-born popula-
tions have policies and procedures that determine the criteria for selecting people allowed
to immigrate. For many years Canada has had a set of relatively sophisticated criteria to
select immigrants based on three major immigration categories: economic immigrants,
family-class immigrants, and refugees (for details of these classifications, see Chapter 2).
Immigrants under each category may share similar socio-economic characteristics and
expectations of their new life in Canada that may shape their post-migration experience.
In short, the migration phase is a process through which immigrants gradually
change both geographical location and social position as they cease to be citizens of their
home country and become newcomers in a host country. This is also a highly regulated
process subject to the host country’s immigration policies, which are very often based on
individual migrants’ socio-economic and personal characteristics.
Post-migration Phase
When an immigrant has arrived and settled in the host country, we may say that he or she
is in the post-migration phase. This can be a very unsettled and transient phase for most
immigrants and their families as they struggle to find a place to establish their home. They
need to develop a new daily routine of where to shop, where to go for religious gatherings
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
että Tuomas (jos hän oli täällä) saattoivat olla veljen puolella ja
totella hänen käskyjään ja siis joko estää Aljošaa pääsemästä
puistoon tai ilmoittaa veljelle ajoissa, että häntä etsitään ja kysellään.
Huvimajassa ei ollut ketään. Aljoša istuutui eiliselle paikalleen ja
alkoi odottaa. Hän katseli ympärilleen huvimajassa, ja se näytti
hänestä jostakin syystä paljon vanhemmalta kuin eilen, näytti tällä
kertaa perin rappeutuneelta. Oli muutoin yhtä kirkas päivä kuin
eilenkin. Viheriäisellä pöydällä oli ympyränmuotoinen jälki, luultavasti
eilisen ryyppylasin jättämä, josta oli läikähtänyt konjakkia.
Tyhjänpäiväisiä ja asiaankuulumattomia ajatuksia nousi hänen
päähänsä, kuten on tavallista ikävän odotuksen aikana: esimerkiksi,
miksi hän nyt tänne tultuaan oli istuutunut aivan täsmälleen samalle
paikalle, missä oli istunut eilen, eikä toiselle paikalle? Viimein hänen
mielensä kävi hyvin surulliseksi, surulliseksi levottomuutta
herättävästä tietämättömyydestä. Mutta hän ei ollut istunut
neljännestuntiakaan, kun äkkiä jostakin hyvin läheltä kuului kitaran
akordi. Joku istui tai oli juuri istuutunut enintään noin
kahdenkymmenen askelen päähän hänestä jonnekin pensaikkoon.
Aljošan muistossa välähti yhtäkkiä, että hän eilen poistuessaan
veljensä luota huvimajasta oli nähnyt tai hänen silmissään oli
vilahtanut vasemmalla, matala, vanha puutarhapenkki pensaitten
välissä. Sille kai oli nyt istuutunut vieraita. Mutta kuka? Miesääni
alkoi äkkiä laulaa kuplettia imelällä kurkkuäänellä, säestäen itseään
kitaralla:
— Jos te olisitte sotilas junkkeri tai nuori husaari, niin ette puhuisi
noin, vaan vetäisitte sapelin tupesta ja puolustaisitte koko Venäjää.
— Miten niin?
— Siihen juuri.
— Aljoša, voitko heti tulla tänne luokseni vai etkö? Tekisit suuren
palveluksen.
3.
Veljekset tutustuvat
— Sinä siis muistat sen? Anna tulla vain hilloakin, pidän siitä
vieläkin.
— Pidän, Ivan. Veli Dmitri sanoo sinusta: Ivan on kuin hauta. Minä
sanon sinusta: Ivan on arvoitus. Sinä olet vieläkin minulle arvoitus,
mutta jonkin verran olen jo päässyt sinusta selville, senkin vasta tänä
aamuna!
— No?
— Sitä vain, että sinä olet aivan samanlainen nuori mies kuin
kaikki muutkin kolmenkolmatta vuoden ikäiset nuorukaiset,
samanlainen nuori, perin nuori, raikas ja kelpo poika, no,
sanokaamme keltanokka! Mitä, enhän vain loukannut sinua kovin
pahasti?
— Matkustan.
— Luullakseni ei.
— Jos sinä matkustat huomenna pois, niin mikä iäisyys tässä on?