Importance of Social Integration
A 1994 briefing paper by United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) for the World Summit for Social Development highlighted that “social integration” held different meanings to different people — for some, social integration was a positive process about encouraging harmonious interactions between diverse communities in society, and providing equal rights and opportunities for everyone. The Panel on the Integration of Immigrants into American Society (2015) recognised that integration was a two-way process between immigrants and locals; immigrants experienced change upon arrival in their new host countries, and natives adapted to the presence of immigrants. These changes could be seen in areas of “education, employment and earnings, occupations, poverty, residential integration, language, health, crime, and family patterns” by comparing across generations of immigrants and natives.
For example, the Panel’s research showed that in US, foreign-born immigrants had a life expectancy of 80.0 years, 3.4 years longer than that of the US-born population, but over generations, this advantage eroded and converged with the US-born. The number of inter-racial or inter-ethnic marriages in the US had also doubled (15.1% in 2010), when compared to a generation ago in 1980 (6.7%). Brown (2013) showed how ethnic segregation and diversity could be mapped by converting demographic databases into interactive maps using digital technology such as Geographic Information Systems; clustering of ethnic communities was commonly interpreted as a negative sign of segregation, though it could also be a result of demand of housing and social equality (Simpson etc., 2008).
Social integration did not always lead to positive outcomes. UNRISD (1994) called for a thoughtful consideration of whether the nature of the current process of development, which immigrants were to be integrated into, was viable or just. For instance, would integrating all people into the existing lifestyle of consumerism in developed economies be a sustainable development? In this instance, perhaps the issue was more of reform of the existing system, rather than integration. Disintegration of existing systems might be essential before progress towards a more equitable society could be made, for example, ending the practice of slavery.
UNRISD (1994) also stated that for others, increasing integration had a negative connotation of threatening to impose an undesirable conformity on people. This was understandable, as Putnam (2007) outlined in his landmark study, that while immigration generally strengthened advanced nations, the introduction of diversity into the host country challenged community cohesion in the near term. The UK Social Integration Commission (2014) expressed the ethical dilemma of its remit as, ““Do too little and we could drift into segregation, be too heavy handed and we could cause a backlash against social engineering”. Putnam (2007) offered optimism in overcoming this challenge though, stating that racial and ethnic lines of divisions were artificial social constructs which could be deconstructed, and he pointed to the wave of immigration between late 1800s to early 1900s, during which US managed to successfully integrate immigrants and locals, by building a broader sense of “we”.
Despite the short-term friction that might result from differences in cultures, it was important to take a long-term view towards resolving conflicts and building relationships between immigrants and locals. According to the Social Integration Commission (2014), the proportion of British residents who belonged to an ethnic minority was projected to increase from 16% in mid-2012 to about 38% by 2050. A lack of integration could lead to long-term unemployment due to lack of contact with those in work, difficulty for companies to recruit from homogenous networks, and increase in anxiety and ill-health — all of which were estimated to cost the UK economy 6 billion pounds every year, or 0.5% of total GDP in the UK (Social Integration Commission, 2014),
There were long-term benefits to creating a social integrated society. Putnam (2009) stated that immigrants could introduce cultural diversity and benefit the host country by fostering greater creativity and economic growth. People who were more socially integrated also tend to demonstrate more altruistic behaviours, as observed by Brañas-Garza etc (2010). A socially integrated society would also be more resilient in the face of adversity. In recent times, Williams (2014) related to how New York City recovered from the 2012 Superstorm Sandy catastrophe. In a city heavily populated with immigrants and where nearly a quarter of its population was non-English proficient, there were communities in New York City with stronger civic networks, and these communities responded better to the disaster than those with limited social ties, which had to endure a messier recovery experience. Post-9/11, research also showed that police officers who were more socially integrated coped with the mental stress better than those who were not (Schwarzer etc., 2014). These showed that it was possible to build strong social ties between immigrants and locals in a highly diverse community, and there are many ways to do so - for example, through education, popular culture, or common experiences (Putnam, 2007).
In conclusion, while social integration offers society potential benefits in the long run, such as economic growth and stronger community resilience, the journey towards integration is often fraught with difficulties that challenged community cohesion. In addition, increasing integration could sometimes also lead to undesirable outcomes such as integrating immigrants into unjust or unviable lifestyles. Social designers therefore have to empathise with the needs of both locals and immigrants in the community, in order to evaluate the merits and means for bringing them closer together.
Adapted from original article in the publication, ‘Integrating Immigrants and Locals through Experience Design’, on Medium.
