< Return to index
NEGOTIATING BI-CULTURAL IDENTITY
Second Generation Greek-Australians
Paul Kalfadellis *
Bi-cultural identity imposes on the individual the need to negotiate differing cultural
practices, behaviours and patterns of communication that can result in conflicting
interpersonal expectations (LaFromboise, Coleman & Gerton, 1993). Second
generation Greek-Australians (SGGAs) have often found themselves having to
negotiate and integrate both their ethnic Greek culture and the mainstream Anglo-
Australian culture in their everyday lives.
Although arguably these two cultural perspectives are not diametrically different, they
do have their distinctions, for example, the former being classified as a collectivist
culture whereas the latter is considered individualist (Hofstede, 1980).
This has had implications for the SGGAs who have been socialised and raised in the
Greek household, whilst concurrently working and living in the mainstream Anglo-
Australian community. This paper seeks to provide some insights and observations
into what the author believes to be some of the issues that SGGAs have had to face
in negotiating a bi-cultural identity.
Introduction
Migration has resulted in individuals inhabiting and internalising dual or multiple
cultural worlds. Many migrants find themselves living a bi-cultural existence in their
adopted homeland. This is especially the case where there is a large cultural
distance between the cultures of the migrant’s homeland and the newly adopted
country. New Zealand migrants to Australia do not have the same cultural distance to
overcome as say Somali immigrants to Australia.
A bi-cultural existence assumes that individuals are able to function effectively in two
cultures. Bi-cultural individuals often find themselves switching between their different
cultural identities depending upon the context of the situation in which they find
themselves (Benet-Martinez, Leu, Lee & Morris, 2002).
Bi-culturalism has been acknowledged by psychologists as imposing on the
individual the need to negotiate differing cultural practices, behaviours and patterns
of communication that can result in conflicting interpersonal expectations
(LaFromboise, Coleman & Gerton, 1993). How individuals internalise and negotiate a
bi-cultural identity is important, because it can reflect upon the development of a
national and cultural psyche whilst also informing our understanding of the
differences to be found in individual personalities and their concept of self (Phinney,
1999). Negotiating a bi-cultural identity is even more pronounced for the children of
first generation migrants, that is the second generation who have been born in or
have migrated at a very young age to the adopted homeland of their parents.
They often find themselves inhabiting and living in more than one culture (Benet-
Martinez & Haritatos, 2005), the culture of their country of birth and upbringing, and
the culture of their parents’ homeland. The latter often continues to be practiced in
the adopted homeland, among members of that migratory community. This paper in
looking at the issue of biculturalism provides some insights and observations on the
bi-cultural experience of SGGAs.
Australia’s immigration post the Second World War (WWII) has resulted in
approximately 30% of the population being born overseas or having a parent born
overseas (ABS 2004).
The large wave of Greek migrants that came to Australia between the late 1950s and
early 1970s, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics ("ABS") make up one of
the largest community groups in Australia (ABS 2004).
Greeks migrating to Australia were keen on maintaining and imparting the home
country’s cultural heritage to their children. This was important in maintaining Greek
cultural identity but was also potentially problematic for SGGAs who were growing up
in Australia having to negotiate Greek cultural values which were very different from
Australian values.
Two aspects of these differences I would like to highlight in the paper are the
collectivist nature of Greek society compared to the individualist nature of Australian
society (Hofstede, 1980) and the differing patterns of communication exhibited by
Greeks and Australians.
Collectivist and Individualist Cultures
People that migrate from societies characterised by a collectivist culture, such as
Greece to one that is predominantly an individualist culture such as Australia
(Hofstede, 1980), find that their values and cultural practices are not necessarily
adaptive to the new environment, resulting in pressure being brought to bear on
members of the migrating culture to change their values and behaviours (Rosenthal
& Bornholt, 1998).
Collectivist cultures like the Greek culture are characterized by being relationship
oriented, often reinforced by strong familial bonds where independence of the
individual is subsumed to the overall welfare of the group. Such societies also tend to
be hierarchical in nature (Hofstede, 1980). Research on first generation migrants
from collectivist cultures suggests that an authoritarian parenting style persists even
after immigration to an individualist culture (Rosenthal & Bornholt, 1998). These
cultural values are quite distinct from those found in individualist societies that
highlight the importance of individual achievement and responsibility and personal
freedom. The individual’s interest generally overrides that of the group. Smaller
family units have the task of raising children to be autonomous and independent.
Independence encourages freedom of thought suggesting such societies tend to be
more egalitarian in nature encouraging everyone to have their say (Hofstede, 1980).
Patterns of Communication - High and Low Context Cultures
The anthropologist Edward Hall (1959) argued that the transmittal of the information
is inextricably linked to the context which surrounds the message. Context, according
to Hall (1959) is that information which surrounds an event. That information is critical
in giving meaning to an event. The processing of that information (the context)
however is very much culture bound.
According to Hall (1959) cultures which communicate with low levels of information
surrounding the message, assume no prior knowledge surrounding the message and
provide large amounts of explicit information in the message itself. These are
deemed to be low context cultures. A lack of information (context) surrounding the
message means that it has to be explicitly communicated. At the other end of the
scale there are cultures which have high levels of information surrounding the
message. It is assumed the receiver of the message is aware of the surrounding
information which does not have to be explicitly stated, it is understood and implicit
within the context of the communication. These cultures are referred to as high
context cultures. Individuals socialized in these cultures are aware of the large
amounts of information which surround the communicated message.
In low context cultures the weight of responsibility with message transmittal lies with
the communicator of the information. The message needs to be clear and
unambiguous everything needs to be spelt out in specific detail, as it assumes that
the listener does not know any of the contexts surrounding the message. This differs
significantly from high context cultures where the listener has a greater responsibility
in interpreting the message as it is assumed that the listener is aware of the context
of the message without everything needing to be spelt out.
In high context cultures, people are aware of gestures, tone of the voice, facial
expressions, body language and accepted custom which surround the spoken word
and which may contradict the verbal enunciations being made. As the continuum
below shows, Greeks and Australians are at opposite ends of the spectrum and
although not at the extremes Greeks are a high context culture whereas Australians
tend to be low context.
High Context
Japanese
Chinese
Arab
Greek
Mexican
Spanish
Italian
French
English
Australian
American
Scandinavian
German
Swiss
Low Context
Source: Copeland & Griggs (1985)
The differences between Greeks and Australians in terms of their communication
patterns, is illustrated with the following example involving food. In the Greek
household, (especially that of the first generation Greek-Australians), a guest will
always be asked if they would like something to eat or drink. The polite reply coming
back from the guest, if they too are of Greek origin, should be no thank you, even if
they would like something to eat or drink. It is always considered polite to refuse.
However refusal by the host is rarely if ever accepted and the guest will be asked
again until ultimately he or she succumbs to partaking in food or drink. Both host and
guest have been socialised in this communicative process and understand the
context that surrounds the invitation and the response. In comparison in the Anglo
Australian household, a host may also ask a guest or a visitor if they would like
something to eat or drink. The response from the visitor has to be in the affirmative if
they legitimately want something to eat or drink, as the likelihood of a repeat offer will
not be forthcoming. The communication has to be explicit and the meaning behind
the "yes" or "no" has to convey the massage exactly.
In the Greek household the communication taking place is implicit, with both parties
knowing the context in which one rejects the initial offer to partake in food and drink.
The implications for dealing with people from high context cultures like Greece, is
that they adopt an indirect approach to communication not necessarily explicitly
saying what they think. Part of the same process is that they consider face saving
and honour as important and thus are not likely to seek to embarrass you or cause
you to lose ‘face’ by telling you explicitly what they really think.
One final point worth noting is that high context cultures also view rules as being
situational depending upon time and context. This suggests that for family and
friends, rules can be adjusted in order to accommodate them. This is quite different
and quite the opposite in low context cultures such as Australia where people use a
direct approach to communication, rely on the explicit message in order to be
understood and view rules as being based on the rule of law and thus should be
equally applied to all.
Ethnic Identity and Acculturation
Sodowsky, Kwan, and Pannu, (1995) argued that the strength of familial bonds is
very important in understanding the varying degrees of ethnic identity and
acculturation. Ethnic identity refers to an individual’s sense of self in terms of
membership in a particular group (Phinney, 1990). That group of loosely aligned
people share a sense of belonging to a common place, history, ancestors, place of
worship, language and cultural identity which may be real or imagined but which
enables members of that group to connect to each other. Individuals embrace
various aspects of the group, including self identification with the group, sense of
belonging to a group, commitment to that group, and a sense of shared values and
attitudes toward one’s own ethnic group (Phinney, Horenczyk, Liebkind & Vedder,
2001).
Among Australians of Greek background this sense of Greek identity and belonging
to that group proves to be very strong. A survey of multiculturalism in Australia (Ang,
Brand, Noble & Wilding, 2002) found that in a sample of 400 Australians of Greek
origin and of varying adult ages, only 14% described themselves as being Australian,
with the vast majority describing themselves as being Greek or Greek-Australian.
Acculturation is a process that involves two aspects, the maintenance of one’s
cultural heritage and the adoption of the practices and behaviours of the host culture
(Berry, 1990). According to Berry (1990) the process is long term often taking years
and involves the cultural and psychological change experienced by individuals who
inhabit two or more cultural groups. Kelley and Tseng (1993) suggest that some
migrants may take three to four generations to fully acculturate with the host culture.
For the second generation acculturation is slower but occurs faster than for their
parents (Rosenthal, 1984). This is because the cultural values of their parents are
less established in the new host country and the host culture provides greater
exposure through education and interaction with non immigrant peers (Phinney,
1990). For the second generation this acculturation process involves adjustments
and changes in their behaviour as a result of the contact with the two cultures.
Berry (1990) has suggested that there are four acculturation strategies that have
been adopted by migrants and ethnic minorities in order to manage their cultural
identities. These are assimilation, integration, marginalization and separation.
Assimilation results in the identification with the dominant or mainstream culture.
While, integration suggest that individuals identify with both the mainstream and their
ethnic culture, resulting in a bi-cultural identity. Separation suggests that individuals
identify with their original cultural identity while marginalization implies that individuals
identify with neither. It is this concept of separation that describes the acculturation
strategy of the first generation of Greek migrants that arrived in Australia post WWII.
First Generation Greek-Australians
Large numbers of first generation Greek-Australians (FGGAs) migrated to Australia
from Greece, often originating from low socio economic backgrounds, with the aim of
achieving material wealth. Survival in Australia through hard work was seen as being
important and was the stepping stone for eventual repatriation to Greece after the
accumulation of material wealth.
As a result, separation (Berry, 1990) in the main characterized their existence in
Australia and despite more than a generation of having established themselves in
Australia, separation continues to describe the cultural strategy that most FGGAs
have adopted in Australia. I believe a number of reasons help explain this strategy.
1. Most first generation Greeks migrated to Australia as adults with their ethnic
identity socialized and inculcated at an early age by the Greek society in
which they lived. The cultural distance proved too great for a group that
originated from a highly collectivist culture adapting and adopting the cultural
values of a highly individualist culture like Australia.
For the first generation, there were too many insurmountable cultural
differences that could not be negotiated.
2. The stay in Australia was often seen as ‘temporary’ and therefore there was
no need to integrate and thus get to know and understand the local culture.
3. Large numbers of Greek migrants arrived from not only the same country but
from the same regions and towns of Greece to settle in Australia. This meant
that language, religion, cultural festivities including regional customs could be
practiced in Australia. Social interactions between the sexes could easily
take place within the Greek community due to the large numbers who had
migrated. Ethnic identity retention and separation from the mainstream Anglo
culture could thus easily be practiced in a ‘homeland’ away from home.
The first generation of Greeks who arrived in Australia was allowed to
officially freely practice their culture.
There was no official forced attempt at cultural assimilation, such as the
outlawing of their language, their right to practice their religion or the forced
‘Anglicization’ of their names. This is not to say that people did not change
their names in order to fit in or did not feel some prejudice against them if they
overtly practiced their culture. This is significant because the degree to which
immigrants are motivated to or allowed to retain identification with their culture
of origin is a central issue that affects their acculturation into mainstream
culture and also enables them to retain their ethnic identity (Berry, 1990).
Cultural separation for the first generation of Greeks who migrated to Australia did
not however necessarily mean total isolation from the mainstream Australian
community. Living in Australia, the first generation Greek migrants were not only
keen to maintain their cultural identity but were also keen to interact and partake in
the broader Australian community maintaining positive and friendly relations with
dominant culture. This was evident in a number of ways.
Maintenance of cultural identity in Australia
• Social relations and marriage was in the main within the Greek community
• Centrality of religion and the importance of Greek Orthodox Church
• Formation of different brotherhoods from different regions of Greece helped
maintain heritage, traditions and regional identity (e.g. Cretan Brotherhood)
• The establishment of Greek language schools to instill in the next generation their
cultural identity
• Instilling in their offspring these cultural traditions through socialization in the main
with extended family and members of the brotherhoods which all reinforced the
distinct Greek cultural identity.
Interaction with the dominant mainstream community
• Moved to establish themselves in the workforce and establish commercial
operations within the Australian community
• Australia afforded the migrants equal civil rights with the rest of the mainstream
community including citizenship rights (after a period of qualification), and the
right to vote. This was in marked contrast to other countries to where Greeks
were migrating (e.g. Germany) and only welcomed as ‘guest workers’ without
civic rights.
• The bi-partisan policy from the early 1970s to mid 1990s of multiculturalism
afforded the Greek community the right to practice their own culture without
feeling a sense of marginalisation or under pressure to assimilate. Under the
policy Australia was inclusive of all cultures each with equal status and on a par
with the dominant Anglo-Celtic culture of the majority.
This interaction had major consequences for the SGGAs.
Birth in Australia gave them automatic rights to citizenship, while at the same time
multiculturalism gave them the right and even encouraged them to practice their
ethnic culture within the broader confines of the Australian community and still be
considered Australian.
Second Generation Greek Australians
For the SGGAs integration (Berry, 1990) best describes their bi-cultural existence in
Australia. Berry (1990) suggested that culture is transmitted through the learning and
influence of one’s parents, peer interactions and adults and institutions in one’s
society or community.
The dominant culture however creates a dual socialization process for minority
groups that are in the process of acculturating in the mainstream culture (Berry,
1990). Media, the school system, public holidays, heroes, festivities, and institutions
highly identifiable with the mainstream culture all help reinforce the values and
practices of the dominant culture. This influences minorities especially the second
generation in the process of acculturating. Retention of one’s own ethnic identity has
less overt reinforcement in the dominant society.
This is not to say that familial attempts were not made among the FGGA to highlight
Greek customs, traditions and practices in order to help with the retention of their
ethnic identity and stave off the acculturation process.
However members of the second generation striving for acculturation in the
mainstream Australian society would often feel pressure and conflict in terms of the
expectations imposed by family. At times this led to family dysfunction as the
children of the first generation migrants were not seen as fulfilling their familial or
ethnic roles, by seeking to ‘move away’ from being ‘Greek’ and seeking to assimilate
into the mainstream Anglo Australian culture (Sodowsky et. al. 1995).
This often would result in emotional stress and confusion for the second generation,
because they were not seen by their families as adhering to their ‘Greekness’ while
at the same time they were not seen by mainstream Australia as being ‘truly’ one of
them. (Sodowsky et. al. 1995)
What is at play here and often prevalent for the second generation of migrant
communities is a "push-pull" scenario. The "push" in terms of acculturation in
response to the dominant cultural group and the "pull" in response to ones own
ethnic grouping (Roysircai-Sodowsky & Maestas, 2000). For SGGAs this scenario
played out in Australia can be seen in the following factors.
Ethnic Identity – Pull
• Greek the language of daily interaction
• Attendance at Greek school
• Sunday church attendance with parents
• Greek Scouts
• Greek Youth Brotherhoods (replicas of first generation)
• Greek Discos and Parties
• Greek Dancing Classes
• Listening to Greek music
• Socialization with extended family
• Sport involved playing soccer
• Supporting either South Melbourne Hellas or Heidelberg United (both clubs
identified as being ethnically Greek)
Acculturation - Push
• Anglo dominated society in Australia
• English the language of choice
• Schooling in Australian education system
• Reading and viewing Australian media
• Listening to Music – Skyhooks, AC/DC
• Going to the Pub to listen to rock bands
• Socialization with non immigrant Anglo (Australian) friends
• Attending parties and bringing your own (BYO) (a concept anathema to
FGGAs)
• Playing Australian Rules Football and Cricket
• Supporting Australian Rules football teams
• Identifying with things Australian – Events such as ANZAC Day, Melbourne
Cup, Sporting Heroes, and Cultural Icons etc.
For SGGAs the extent to which one of these scenarios has dominated there
existence in Australia may ultimately reflect on the acculturation strategy they have
adopted in that:
1. Where the push scenario has dominated, SGGAs are likely to have moved
into an existence underpinned by separation from the mainstream Anglo
Australian culture.
2. Where the pull scenario has dominated, SGGAs are likely to have moved into
an existence of assimilation with mainstream Anglo Australian culture.
Where SGGAs have sought to maintain a balance between both the push and pull
scenarios they are likely to have integrated of both the Greek and Australian Anglo
identities within their daily lives suggesting that bi-culturalism most likely describes
their existence in Australia.
Conclusion
What is evident is that in any multicultural society there needs to be an awareness of
the different mindsets and worldviews that permeate among individuals and groups
within that society. Adults who have migrated to new homelands cannot readily
abandon their cultural values which have been socialized through their formative
years and be expected to adopt the cultural values of their new homeland. This
becomes especially difficult the greater the cultural distance to be found between
home and host culture. Consequently, the society accepting people from diverse
cultural backgrounds has to accommodate the difference that will arise with the
migrating generation and allow time for the acculturation process to take effect.
This was the case for FGGAs who in the main despite settling in and adjusting to
living in Australia, their existence in Australia has principally been characterized by
their separation from the mainstream Australian culture. The SGGAs despite having
adopted a lot of the cultural practices of the FGGA have gone through an
acculturation process adopting behavioral patterns which are more reflective of the
dominant culture.
Bi-culturalism in the main has characterized their existence in Australia. Partaking
and succeeding in the mainstream society has meant having to adjust to the ways of
the majority. This process will continue into the future ultimately leading to a process
where assimilation with the mainstream Anglo Australian culture becomes the norm
among third and subsequent generations of Greek Australians.
____________
* Paul Kalfadellis, Department of Management and Economics, Monash University,
Melbourne
< Return to index |