By Distinguished Prof Andre Renzaho
Nyadol Nyuon’s recent comments about assimilation and “white culture” have generated considerable debate on social media.
As acculturation has been a significant focus of my research, I think it is worth stepping back from the controversy and clarifying what these concepts actually mean.
Assimilation is not the same as integration.
Integration means participating fully in Australian society, learning the language and embracing shared civic values while retaining meaningful aspects of one’s culture, traditions, religion and identity. Research generally associates integration with favourable health and wellbeing outcomes through social participation, cultural continuity, belonging and social support.
Separation means maintaining stronger connections to one’s heritage culture while having less engagement with the wider society. Importantly, separation is not necessarily harmful. Strong cultural networks can provide identity, belonging, social support and protection from discrimination, which can be protective for health and wellbeing. However, limited engagement with wider institutions can also restrict opportunities.
Assimilation involves increasingly adopting the dominant culture, potentially relinquishing aspects of one’s original culture, language and traditions. While adaptation can facilitate engagement with mainstream institutions, pressured or imposed assimilation can contribute to cultural loss, disconnection, stress and poorer wellbeing.
Marginalisation occurs when people become disconnected from both their heritage culture and the wider society. It is generally associated with poorer health and wellbeing, including isolation, loss of belonging and psychological distress.
There is also cultural transmutation: cultural identities and practices can be transformed through sustained interaction between cultures, producing new and sometimes hybrid identities. Among some migrant and second-generation young people, new subcultures, including certain gang or street-group identities, can emerge through complex interactions between heritage culture, host-society influences, peer networks and experiences of exclusion. These cannot simply be attributed to migration or culture; structural disadvantage and discrimination also matter.
The critical distinction is between voluntary cultural change and cultural pressure. People naturally change. We learn languages, adopt new customs, modify traditions and develop hybrid identities. That is not necessarily cultural loss. It can be cultural evolution.
The problem arises when people are told:
“to belong here, you must give up who you are.”. You can be fully Australian while maintaining meaningful connections to your heritage. Understanding these distinctions matters for migration, social cohesion, identity, health and wellbeing.
