The study of acculturation conducted by all anthropologists in the past was usually conducted based on a similar framework, whether in the Commonwealth countries, in the United States or Latin America. For the first time, the term acculturation was found in Webster's Unbridged Dictionary (1928) which was interpreted as "… the approximation of one human race of tribe to another in culture or arts by contact."
Until 1933, the meaning contained in the term acculturation was still too general; for example, as stated in the Supplement to the New English dictionary (1933), namely ".. the adaptation and assimilation of an alien culture." In the 1934 edition of Webster's Unbridged Dictionary, the meaning given in the term acculturation changed, namely "... the approximation of one social group of people to another in culture or arts by contact; the transfer of culture elements from one social group of people to another."
About Assimilation and Acculturation
The study of the meeting of two or more cultures is not only applicable among tribes of a certain race, but also emphasizes more on a social group. In the following years, the limitation of acculturation has a more flexible meaning, for example, it appears in the New Standard dictionary (1936), namely "... the importing of culture by one people to another."
The interest in the study of acculturation in America is thought to have started as a reaction to an attempt at reconstruction based on memory culture, or more based on a hypothetical reconstruction (Beals, 1962). In the early 20th century, attention to the study of culture had become increasingly complex considering the increasingly widespread spread of culture and the increasingly rapid development of contemporary culture. As a result, researchers were more interested in focusing their attention on the study of cultural contacts, namely in line with the increasingly rapid development of contemporary culture at that time, because knowledge about it was still felt to be relatively limited.
In England, interest in the phenomenon of the meeting of two or more cultures was mostly carried out by functionalists, but generally also started from a reaction to studies on memory culture. The interest in studying this problem in England was also caused by (1) the urgency of the practical application of anthropology in colonial areas, and (2) as part of a reaction to the limitations of the functionalist approach. Finally, the study of this matter was applied to a better approach than that usually carried out by functionalists, namely approaching it in the framework of the dynamics of change. The very rapid changes that occurred in a colonial as studied by the classical functionalist B. Melinowski showed that the time dimension received less attention.
As in England, France and the Netherlands, the usefulness of acculturation studies was more aimed at solving practical problems in the colonies; also a major factor that caused the increasing popularity of this study. Meanwhile, in America the rapid development of acculturation studies was more related to the emergence of various social problems as a result of the economic depression (malaise). For that, B. Malinowski said "... a new branch of anthropology must sooner or later be started: the anthropology of the changing Native".
In social sciences, the terms assimilation and acculturation are often used interchangeably. Some argue that the term assimilation is more often used by sociologists, while acculturation is more often used by anthropologists (Gordon, 1964: 61); and is more of a specific term commonly used by anthropologists in America (Herskovits, 1958). Among some students in Germany, the field of acculturation is better known as the study of cultural change, while in England it is more popular as the study of the meeting of two or more cultures.
Basically, the understanding contained in the terms assimilation and acculturation, besides containing the same meaning, also shows that there are different dimensions. For example, the limitation of assimilation made by Ernest W. Burgess in the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (1957), among others, says ".. a process of interpretation and fusion in which persons and groups acquire the memories, sentiments, and attitudes of other persons or groups, and, by sharing their experience and history, are incorporated with them in a common cultural life." Furthermore, Ernest W. Bugess said that in these social contacts which begin with the occurrence of personal and deep interactions, in particular, it will be useful to lay the foundations of a further relationship.
Furthermore, the unanimous acceptance of acculturation as a field of study in the discipline of anthropology in the United States can be said to be relatively new. For the first time, the study of acculturation began to be put forward at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association in 1930. Based on the formulation made by Robert Redfield, Ralph Linton, and Melvielle J. Herskovits from the Acculturation Subcommittee in the 1930 Social Science Research Council congress, which was published as "Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation", American Antropologist, Vol.38 No.1 (January-March 1936), p.136; it is said that;
Acculturation is ".. comprehends those phenomena which result when groups of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first hand contact, with subsequent changes in the original cultural patterns of either or both groups".
If observed, both discussions contain an understanding of the occurrence of a meeting of people or cultural behavior. As a result of the meeting, both parties influence each other and eventually their cultures change shape. What seems to differentiate it is the absence of structural characteristics in the limitation of acculturation. In the limitation of assimilation, the socio-structural relationship is reflected in the words "...sharing their experience" and ".. incorporated with in in a common cultural life".
The realization of the formulation of the above acculturation subcommittee cannot be separated from the development of the scope and objects that are always changing, especially since the beginning of the 20th century. As a result of Euro-American influence, primitive nations began to disappear; meanwhile, as a result of developments that occurred in America, the concept of assimilation also changed because it began to be associated with political aspects.
In the future, the concept of acculturation was always tried to be perfected, for example, by Herskovits in the Outline for the Study of Acculturation (Herskovits, 1958). Furthermore, Herskovits (1958:10) argued that the meaning contained in acculturation is different from cultural change. Acculturation is only one aspect of cultural change, while acculturation is one stage of assimilation. In addition, he also said that acculturation is also different from diffusion, and all forms of acculturation contain this meaning, especially in the context of a relationship without physical contact from supporters of a culture. According to Herskovits (1948) diffusion is achieved cultural transmission while acculturation is more cultural transmission in process.
Furthermore, Arnold M. Rose (1956) also explains the difference between assimilation and acculturation. He states that assimilation is ".. the adoption of the culture of another social group a complete extent that the person or group no longer has any characteristic identifying him with his former culture and no longer has any particular loyalities to his former culture. Or, the process leading to this adoption." Based on these limitations, leading to this adoption or an adoption of a foreign culture that is so extensive and complete is more appropriately called assimilation, while acculturation is said to be only, ... the adoption by a person or group of the culture of another social group" is acculturation. Their loyalty to the original culture is getting smaller, and finally the group identifies itself with a new culture.
As a result of the developments that occurred in American society, the concept of assimilation began to be associated with political aspects. Therefore, Robert E. Park (1957:281) gave the term social assimilation, namely "... the process or processes by which people of diverse racial origins and different cultural heritage, accupying a common territory, achieve a cultural solidarity sufficient at least to sustain a national existence." Migrants in America are considered to have assimilated if they can quickly use English and participate in various social, economic, and political activities without causing prejudice. Therefore, in one of his writings, Milton M. Gordon (1964) pointed out the existence of seven variables that must be studied in assimilation. The seven variables are as follows;
Cultural assimilation or behavioral assimilation or commonly called acculturation; the occurrence of changes in cultural patterns towards adjustment to the culture of the majority group.
Structural assimilation, that is, on a large scale they enter various types of associations, cliques and institutions of the majority group, especially at the basic or lowest level.
Assimilation of marriage or amalgamation, namely the occurrence of mixed marriages on a large scale.
Identification assimilation, namely the development of feelings as a nation like that possessed by the majority group.
Attitude receptive assimilation, namely assimilation which is reflected by the absence of a prejudiced attitude.
Behavioral receptional assimilation, namely assimilation which is reflected by the absence of a discriminatory attitude.
Assimilation associated with citizenship status or civic assimilation, among other things, is manifested in the form of the absence of value conflicts and power conflicts.
In this case, assimilation requires migrants to adapt to the cultural group they are visiting (host society). This means that the majority culture is used as a measure to assess the success of individuals or groups in adapting. This concept is in accordance with Arnold M. Rose's view above, namely that their identification and loyalty to the original culture is getting smaller and finally they are loyal and identify themselves with the new culture.
Meanwhile, Frederich E. Lumley in the Dictionary of Sociology said that assimilation is "The process by which different cultures, or individuals or groups representing different cultures, are merged into a homogeneous units". This means that assimilation is a two-way traffic. Therefore, in an assimilation a new culture (melting-pot) will be produced.
Example of Acculturation
Potehi Wayang. This art is similar to wayang golek (wooden puppets), but the stories presented come from Chinese folk legends, such as Sampek Engthay, Sih Djienkoei, Capsha Thaypoo, Sungokong, etc.
Chinese-Indonesian Mixed Culture. Not only ethnicity that has been acculturated, other aspects have also been acculturated, such as food. Example: Lunpia Semarang, the main filling is sliced bamboo shoot skin while lunpia from China is mainly filled with vermicelli.
Example of Assimilation
Ucok's father comes from Madura and Ucok's mother from Betawi. The differences in the origins of Ucok's parents caused cultural differences (differences in language, habits, or customs) between the two. However, over time, Ucok's parents were able to adjust and tolerate each other so that it did not cause conflict or hostility.
Examples of Innovation
The invention of airplanes discovered by Europeans in the 19th century, the results of this innovation have spread to various countries, even to Indonesia. The invention of the printing press so that lessons can be poured into books, as a result, education that was previously only for the upper class can now be achieved by all levels of society.
Acculturation is the same but different in terms of cultural elements, while Assimilation is different because of the loss of elements of the original culture's authenticity due to certain factors such as the influence of foreign cultures or because of tolerance towards foreign cultures which erodes the original culture, while Innovation is a difference in the mindset of each individual or group so as to produce a work that is useful and can be accepted by most cultures.