Factors and Ethical Values that Foster a Sense of Belonging Toward the Host Society: The Case of South Asian Communities in Montreal's ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Factors and Ethical Values that Foster a Sense of Belonging
Toward the Host Society: The Case of South Asian Communities in
Montreal’s Parc-Extension Neighbourhood (Canada)
by Yanick Farmer* (Université du Québec à Montréal UQAM)
Abstract
Place attachment studies developed scales for measuring the sense of belonging using a
range of determinants. However, ethical values are rarely dealt with as such in the literature
on belonging. This study’s primary objective was thus to understand and rank the factors
that, within an immigrant community whose culture of origin is somewhat different from
that of the host society, foster development of a sense of place attachment (neighbourhood,
city, state, or country). Then, to grasp the role of ethical determinants in constructing a sense
of place attachment, the study’s secondary objective was to see, also by ranking, which of
the values present in the host society are perceived by members of immigrant communities
as fostering their attachment to it. To attain these objectives, the study interviewed forty
adult members of South Asian communities living in a Montreal multiethnic neighbourhood.
The results show that interpersonal relations, low crime rate and infrastructures are the
most important factors to foster place attachment, while fraternity, equality and safety are
the most important ethical values.
Keywords: sense of belonging, ethical values, host society, South Asian immigrants, Canada
Background
Populations in Canada, Quebec, and the city of in multi-ethnic communities (Zapata-Barrera
Montreal have increasingly varied ethnic ori- 2017; Caponio & Borkert 2010; Vertovec 2007;
gins (Communauté métropolitaine de Montréal, Castels 2002). This was the case in France, with
2013; Dewing, 2009; Bating et al., 2007; Li, 2000). the Stasi Commission (Stasi 2003), the Neth-
This creates new challenges for public adminis- erlands (Michalowski, 2005) and, of course, in
trations, particularly in terms of integration and Quebec, with the Bouchard-Taylor Commission
social cohesion. In recent years, several western (Bouchard & Taylor 2008), and the more recent
nations have initiated broad collective contem- debate on the Charter of Quebec Values (Gou-
plation of the models that are most conducive vernement du Québec 2013). The tensions that
to fostering integration and social cohesion sometimes manifest around these issues seem
to be partially provoked by conflicting values that
* The author would like to show his gratitude to fundamentally come from a single source: the
Laurence Normand (research assistant), whose con-
tribution to the project was very important, and to legitimate desire of both minority and majority
the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council community members to feel like they belong in
of Canada for their generous financial support. He the place where they live, that is, to have a sense
also would like to thank his community partners from
of living in a place that is like them, and where
Afrique au féminin, PACT de rue et X-Art for their help
in recruiting participants for the interviews. they can have the life they aspire to (Banting &
NEW DIVERSITIES Vol. 23, No. 1, 2021
ISSN-Print 2199-8108 ▪ ISSN-Internet 2199-8116NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021 Yanick Farmer Soroka 2012; Ager & Strang 2008). In this ideal ment (family home, friends, neighbours, com- that drives them, what is immediately stressed munity, cultural and work lives, etc.), the sense is the key importance of the sense of belonging, of belonging in a place, sometimes called “social which can be defined as individuals’ feeling that belonging,” “rootedness” or “place of attach- they matter to the other people in the group and ment” (Barbeau et al., 2013; Enns et al., 2013; can get their needs met through their involve- Rioux & Mokounkolo 2010; Alphandéry & Ber- ment with the group (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). gues 2004; Bonnemaison 1981), is one essential For several decades now, scientific research dimension (as we can also belong to a family, has made it possible to understand the sense profession, sports team, etc.) of the resulting of belonging through its individual and psycho- sense of belonging and well-being. This is why, in social aspects, among others. Several studies numerous studies in the fields of economy, poli- argue that the sense of belonging is a funda- tics and society, the sense of belonging in a place mental human need (Guérin-Pace 2006; Guilbert is generally considered to be the glue of social 2005; de Coninck 2001; Schlachet 2000; Maslow cohesion, cultural identity, integration, or citi- 1970) that is highly determinant of overall well- zenship (Spoonley & Peace 2007; Di Méo 2004; being, that is, human physical and mental health Heckmann & Schnapper 2003; Forrest & Kearns (Hill, 2006; Andersen et al. 2000; Richer & Val- 2001; Phinney et al. 2001; Abou 1981). Some of lerand 1998; Hagerty et al. 1996; Baumeister & the place attachment studies developed scales Leary 1995). In this way, the sense of belonging for measuring the sense of belonging using a is a major factor in a person’s level of satisfaction range of determinants, such as identification, and positive perception of themselves (Young et shared values, social participation, the sense al. 2004; Richer & Vallerand 1998; Baumeister & of acceptance or rejection, sense of personal Leary 1995). However, the sense of belonging is value, etc. (Markus 2010; Avanza and Laferté not only accompanied by mental and physical 2005; Jenson 1998; Berry 1997; Bollen & Hoyle well-being; it is also based on a relationship of 1990). These determinants implicitly suggest inclusion between an individual or a group and that the strength of the sense of belonging in a a defined social category (nationality, ethnic- place (country, state, city, neighbourhood, etc.) ity, society, social class, etc.). A positive sense of is closely linked to value systems that shape the belonging and well-being therefore imply an indi- individual’s personal ethic. Yet ethical determi- vidual’s perception of his adaptation to his envi- nants are never dealt with as such in the litera- ronment, insofar as that environment features ture on belonging (Walters 2007). the social categories used to assess whether or not he belongs to the group (Fisher 2010; Leloup Purpose of the study & Radice 2008; Oriol 1985). Conversely, the loss The study’s primary objective was to understand of an individual’s sense of belonging in his envi- and rank the factors that, within an immigrant ronment is an important dissatisfaction factor community whose culture of origin is somewhat that can lead to anguish, depression, or anti- different from that of the host society, foster social or self-destructive behaviour (UK Social development of a sense of place attachment, i.e. Exclusion Unit 2001; Hagerty & Williams 1999). the neighbourhood, city, state or country. Then, In other words, a sense of belonging creates a to grasp the role of ethical determinants in con- sense of internal harmony, as well as harmony structing a sense of place attachment, the study’s between individuals and their environments secondary objective was to see, also by ranking, (Brettell & Reed-Danahay 2011; Reed-Danahay & which of the values present in the host society Brettell 2008; Dorais 2004; Hogg & Turner 1985). (in relationships between citizens or with insti- Immediately, given the key place the living tutions) are perceived by members of immigrant environment plays in the individual’s environ- communities as fostering their attachment to it. 90
Open Forum | Factors and Ethical Values NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021
Theoretical Framework be more intangible, associated with significant
Our research team opted to address the sense of events that create positive or negative memories
belonging primarily from its psychosocial dimen- about a place, or values that define the place’s
sion, starting with the subjective evaluation social structure and interactions between its
expressed by members of the South Asian com- people. Our conceptualization of belonging is
munities living in Montreal (Quebec, Canada). thus based on the idea that place attachment
Rather than taking a “distantiated” approach to develops from “valences” between the subject’s
belonging, involving, for example, observations affective predispositions, rooted in values that
of an immigrant’s integration with a social insti- shape personal ethics, and the place’s objec-
tution based on external socioeconomic char- tive characteristics which define its specificity.
acteristics, belonging was examined through its Although this approach founded on valences
affective dimension, associated with the attach- associated with personal values is fairly unusual
ment a person has for a place. This evaluation in the literature, it is nonetheless embedded in
is partially determined by the personal (ethical) numerous studies, particularly in environmental
values behind that person’s judgements about psychology, in which the determinants of place
others and about institutions. A value is an attachment are physical, spatial, social or emo-
emotionally rooted form of personal preference tional (Altman & Low 2012; Debenedetti 2005;
which structures our evaluation of things, and Hidalgo & Hernandez 2001).
which propels actions (Farmer & Versailles 2019). This conceptual background was used in
The value can also be associated with purposes developing the interview guide (see table 2), as
that are expressed in actions that are intended to well as in analyzing (coding) the study data. The
achieve them. For example, the value of equality interview guide’s first section asked members of
is not only a determinant for the emotional and South Asian communities to assess their level
intellectual structure that guides the subject’s of attachment to their neighbourhood, the city
actions; it is also a kind of state of the world of Montreal, Quebec, Canada and their country
that the subjects who place importance on this of origin. In the second section, we asked them
value are seeking to achieve (a purpose). Ethics about the ethical or moral values that are most
is a search for the “good” in action. It seeks to important to them in their social and private
answer the question: “what to do to do well?” lives. We also asked them to tell us what val-
(Ricoeur 1990). Therefore, to achieve good, eth- ues a society should promote to foster a sense
ics must be based on values. As a result, a per- of belonging in the people who live in it. Further
son’s “morality,” “personal ethics” or “worldview” details on data collection appear in the method-
are made up of ordered values that shape how ology section.
he or she perceives and acts on the world around
him or her, including the place where he or she Methodology
lives (Weber, 1993; Ravlin & Meglino 1987). Population and sample
Accordingly, the research team needed to To better understand the notion of belonging and
question study participants directly about their its ethical determinants, the study questioned
attachment to various places (neighbourhood, adult members of South Asian communities
city, country, etc.). To discern that attachment, who live in the Parc-Extension neighbourhood in
they also had to ask about certain more salient Montreal. Either they or their parents were from
facets that characterize a place. Such facets four countries: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and
may include such things as urban infrastructure Sri Lanka. These communities’ cultural practices
(parks, playing fields, libraries, public transporta- and traditional believes are generally fairly differ-
tion, places of worship, etc.), architecture, the ent from those of Quebecers of European origin
economy, people, and so on. Such facets can also (Fiore 2013; Paré 2008; Walters 2007; Poirier
91NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021 Yanick Farmer
2006; Dhruvarajan 1993; Meintel 1993). For lived in Parc-Extension. Twenty-six subjects were
example, and in contrast with most Quebecers, women (65%) and fourteen were men (35%).
South Asian social networks are largely formed Since the study’s main aim was to establish a
around families and religious leaders, which ranking of the factors and values that are the
makes members’ desire for individual emanci- most “attractive” in contributing to a sense of
pation less evident, particularly among women place attachment, the sample size was initially
(Rajiva & D’Sylva 2014; Zaidi et al. 2014; Var- determined with a view to representativity. The
ghese & Jenkins 2009; Voigt-Graf 2005; Walton- team wanted to ensure that the picture of the
Roberts 2004). In general, the neighbourhood’s South Asian communities the research created
population has less education (over 50% have a was sufficiently complete. We believe we have
high school diploma or less), and is poorer (over achieved that, insofar as the characteristics of the
40% are low-income people) than the Quebec population under study (age, sex, place of origin,
population as a whole; Parc-Extension is the etc.) are all well represented in the sample. The
neighbourhood with the highest proportion of details on study participants’ sociodemographic
its labour force working in a language other than profiles are provided in table 1.
English and French (Bakhshaei & McAndrew
2011; Ville de Montréal 2010; CDÉC 2002). Table 1: Sociodemographic Profile of Study
The choice of these communities is therefore Participants
particularly appropriate for the study’s purposes. N N%
Unlike many European immigrants, for exam- Age
> 40 26 65%
ple, for the South Asians, most of the process
< 40 14 35%
of constructing belonging remains to be done
Sex
when they get to Canada (Vatz-Laaroussi 2009; Men 14 35%
Laczko 2005; St-Germain et al. 2005). It thus Women 26 65%
seemed easier to isolate the factors that enable Marital status
the transition between “before” and “after” in Married 21 53%
Single 14 35%
the development of a sense of belonging after
Other 5 12%
they arrived in Canada. In general, although of
Language spoken at home
course there may be exceptions, the disjunction English 2 5%
is less radical among immigrants with Western French 1 2%
backgrounds and may make it more difficult to Other 37 93%
identify “local” factors in the construction of the Education
Primary school 6 15%
sense of belonging (Gilkinson & Sauvé, 2012;
High school 10 25%
Xue, 2007). The choice of Montreal and Quebec College 8 20%
in Canada is also noteworthy in that it allows us University 16 40%
to see whether the perception of belonging to Economic situation
place is modified by the competing integration Below average 8 20%
Average 29 73%
models promoted by the central government
Above average 3 7%
(Canada) and a “substate nation” (Quebec) (Ban-
Years in Canada
ting & Kymlicka, 2012). 0 to 5 16 40%
As a result of a solicitation1 on classified ad 5 to 10 5 13%
sites such as Kijiji and with neighbourhood com- > than 10 19 47%
munity organizations that spread the word, the Religious practice
Often 30 75%
study team was able to recruit 40 adults who
Sometimes 5 12%
1
Rarely 2 5%
The entire project approach was approved by the
Never 3 8%
university’s research ethics board.
92Open Forum | Factors and Ethical Values NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021
Data collection pant. Some interviews were conducted in public
The data was collected by means of a sociodemo- places, such as coffee shops or restaurants. Oth-
graphic questionnaire and semi-structured inter- ers were held in an office at a community orga-
views. The questionnaire contained fifteen ques- nization or university. Some took place at par-
tions on age, sex, marital and professional status, ticipants’ homes. Prior to recruitment and data
dependent children, languages spoken at home collection, the team walked the neighbourhood
and at work, economic situation, date of arrival for several weeks to create ties with the commu-
in the country, and religious beliefs. The ques- nities by participating in activities, such as vol-
tionnaire allowed the study team to establish, if unteer activities, that were not directly related
desired, cross-checks between the sociodemo- to the study. This preparatory work facilitated
graphic data and perspectives expressed during the recruitment of members as well as word-of-
interviews. The interviews lasted an average of mouth.
forty-five to ninety minutes, although some were To align with study objectives, the interview
longer. In general, participants were very gener- guide separated the questions into two distinct
ous and comfortable with their comments. The categories: questions on factors that contributed
interviews were conducted in French or English. to the sense of belonging, and questions on the
In two cases, the interview was carried out with role of ethical or moral values. The questions in
the help of an interpreter. The interview location the interview guide appear in table 2.
was selected based on what suited the partici-
Table 2: Interview guide questions on belonging and values
COMPARATIVE STUDY OF BELONGING AND FACTORS
Q1: In general, how would you describe the strength of your sense of belonging toward your country
of origin? Toward Canada? Québec? Montreal? Your neighbourhood?
Q2: What situations or events explain the differences? Are there any particularly striking moments?
Q3: What characteristics must a place have (neighbourhood, city, country, state, etc.) to be attrac-
tive?
Q4: What should a host society do to foster a sense of belonging in the members of your community?
Q5: What should the members of your community do to become close to the host society?
ROLE OF VALUES
Q6: Which of these aspects played an important role in constructing your sense of belonging?
Explain why and compare.
a) The sense of being surrounded by family and/or good friends?
b) The sense of being accepted by the host society (politics, people, etc.)?
c) The possibility of having some level of comfort (job, health, education)?
d) A legal system that protects basic rights (such as religion)?
Q7: What values are most important in a society? Fraternity (interpersonal connections)? Individual
liberty? Equality? Religion? Safety? Explain.
93NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021 Yanick Farmer
Data analysis ter belonging both due to the frequency at which
In addition to the forty questionnaires filled participants mentioned them, and their real influ-
out by participants, the study team assembled ence stemming from the ranking they were given.
empirical materials that included 1,248 pages In general, participants explicitly ordered factors
of verbatim transcripts of the interviews. Using when answering questions. Sometimes, however,
qualitative analysis software to navigate within in the absence of an explicit ranking, we had to
the transcriptions was deemed unnecessary. interpret the ranking based on the contextual
Since it would have taken too much space to elements of the response and the emphasis that
simultaneously present a detailed analysis of was placed on certain factors by the interviewee.
the interview excerpts on our research themes To address the second objective, which was
with the ranking of factors and values that fos- to identify the role of values, we used the same
ter belonging, this article instead focuses on approach as with the factors that foster belong-
the last aspect (ranking). Another article will be ing. We had to differentiate between the values
published based on a more in-depth qualitative based on their importance. Once again, we also
analysis of the interviews and will report on par- established their frequency and ranking based
ticipants’ words and experiences. Thus, to fulfil on a score. For each interview, we identified the
the study’s primary objective, which addressed values listed in response to the questions on
the factors that fostered development of a sense the topic, noting their ranking and the number
of place attachment, the team simply compiled of times they were mentioned. As with the fac-
all the factors participants named, then estab- tors, the importance ranking was established
lished a ranking based on the number of times based on the explicit ranking applied by the
(frequency) participants named them, and the participants, or based on a contextual analysis
ranking they were each given (factor named first, of statements in which we assessed the empha-
second, third, etc.). This data analysis method sis placed on certain values using key language
draws on the prototypical analysis method markers, such as adjectives, adverbs, place in the
developed to investigate social representations, statement, etc.
among other things (Lo Monaco et al. 2016;
Vergès 1992). To calculate and rank the factors Results
in order of importance, we assigned a “score” to The results obtained for the importance of the fac-
the factor named according to its rank. A factor tors that foster place attachment (primary study
named first received three points, a factor listed objective) are summarized in table 3. The results
second received two, and a factor named third that enable an understanding of the role of ethi-
received one point. This data allowed us to iden- cal values (secondary objective) in constructing a
tify the overall importance of the factors that fos- sense of belonging are provided in table 4.
Table 3: Factors that foster place attachment
Factors named Frequency and rank Score
Economy (jobs) 2 x 2nd; 5 x 3rd 9
Infrastructure (roads, transportation, parks, 5 x 1st; 13 x 2nd; 11 x 3rd 52
playgrounds, etc.)
Interpersonal relations 16 x 1st; 4 x 2nd; 7 x 3rd 63
Language and local culture 2 x 2nd; 2 x 3rd 6
Political and legal system 3 x 2nd; 1 x 3rd 7
Safety (low crime rate) 10 x 1st; 5 x 2nd; 2 x 3rd 42
Similar culture (presence of culture of origin) 1 x 1st; 5 x 2nd; 3 x 3rd 16
Social programs (health, education, etc.) 3 x 1st; 5 x 2nd; 7 x 3rd 26
94Open Forum | Factors and Ethical Values NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021
Table 4: Role of ethical or moral values
Values named Frequency and rank Score
Equality (treatment) 8 x 1st; 5 x 2nd 34
Fraternity (friendship, mutual assistance) 12 x 1st; 5 x 2nd 46
Honesty (integrity, trust) 1 x 1st 3
Liberty (individual) 2 x 1st; 7 x 2nd; 4 x 3rd 24
Piety (religion) 1 x 1st; 2 x 2nd; 1 x 3rd 8
Respect (for others and self) 5 x 1st; 1 x 2nd; 1 x 3rd 18
Safety (personal) 8 x 1st; 6 x 2nd; 1 x 3rd 37
Wealth (financial) 1 x 1st 3
Discussion etc.) and equipment needed for a territory to
Ranking of factors operate properly (Steele & Legacy 2017). Accord-
In the results tables, we used bold for the three ing to the data collected, this factor is seen as
highest scores in each of the categories (factors being as important as safety. In the Parc-Exten-
and role of values). Among the factors that foster sion neighbourhood, one of Montreal’s poorest,
place attachment, the quality of interpersonal the proximity of services is reported as being
relations is, by far, the factor that is seen as the very advantageous, given that nearly everything
most positive (63 points). 29 out of 40 partici- is in walking distance, which means households
pants named this factor (72.5%). Interpersonal do not have to purchase a car, a very heavy finan-
relations mean the relationships people have cial constraint.
with family, friends, neighbours and colleagues, Among the other factors that participants
but it also includes interactions in daily life. Here, mentioned less frequently, social programs such
many participants said they were delighted with as health, education and support programs of
how nice people were in their neighbourhood, all types (material help, language classes, etc.)
and in Quebec and Canadian society in general. have a meaningful position. Several participants
Few reported having been subjected to racist reported, with emotion, that they had very much
statements or actions. The two other factors appreciated the help they got from various tiers
with the most positive impact on place attach- of government, as well as from community orga-
ment are tied at 42 points: the sense of safety nizations that are highly active in Parc-Extension.
associated with the low crime rate and the qual- Nine participants (22.5%) also mentioned that
ity of urban infrastructure. Given that the sample they placed some importance on cultural similar-
featured a clear majority of women (65%), it is ity in fostering their attachment to the place. This
unsurprising to see safety rank this high, since expression refers to aspects of the culture of ori-
women are the most frequent targets of harass- gin found in the host society, for example, places
ment and aggression (Kavanaugh 2013; Jeyasee- of worship, grocery stores, and neighbourhood
lan et al. 2007; Wesely & Gaarder 2004). Note, festivals that celebrate the traditions of the coun-
though, that several men also reported that try of origin. Finally, and interestingly, although
this factor was important. The feeling of safety it was sometimes suggested in the interview
refers to the confidence people have in circulat- questions, the political and legal system, which
ing freely on the street without being subjected includes the charters that protect individual
to crimes or rudeness. The notion of urban infra- rights and freedoms, do not appear to be a key
structure refers to roads (streets, avenues, etc.), factor in the construction of a sense of belong-
the transportation system, parks, playgrounds, ing, at least not expressly. Only one of ten partici-
and all physical facilities (libraries, businesses, pants presented it as a significant factor in build-
95NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021 Yanick Farmer
ing his own sense of belonging in the host society. profound, immediate emotional needs, which
Besides, only one participant (2.5 %) mentioned no doubts explains its dominance. The sec-
the debate on secularization (Charter of Quebec ond most important value is safety (thirty-nine
values)2 as “negative”, even if that topic was hot points), which is understood as a type of peace
in the news when he was interviewed. The fac- of mind associated with preserving the person’s
tor with the lowest score is language and local physical and psychological integrity over time.
culture, but it is not generally suggested in the Safety and fraternity seem to directly echo the
questions, so that participants who selected it two factors that were deemed the most mean-
did so spontaneously. Moreover, in contrast with ingful, i.e. the quality of interpersonal relations
received opinion, our study showed that there and the sense of safety associated with the low
is a Francophile current within the South Asian crime rate. The third most important value is
communities. Some stated that they loved Mon- equality (thirty-four points). This value refers to a
treal’s French language and culture, even though person’s feeling that they are treated like others
they sometimes struggled to learn French. Some (regardless of their origin or social status), with
even said that they had visited other Canadian the same respect and privileges. On this mat-
cities, like Toronto, but chose Montreal in the ter, it is remarkable to note that, although many
end because of the local culture, the pace, which study participants (40%, five years or less) had
is seen as slower, the safety and quality of life in just come to Quebec, they stressed how much
Parc-Extension, and the less prohibitive cost of they valued being treated with respect, despite
living. their “immigrant” or “refugee” status. Moreover,
some participants deplored the fact that equal-
Ranking of ethical or moral values ity is not valued more in their country of origin
The values that were named as the most impor- (particularly with respect to gender and socio-
tant in fostering a sense of belonging echo the economic status).
factors. This is not surprising, since the selection Among the next values in the ranking, freedom
of factors, which are, in a sense, the “external (twenty-four points) and respect (twenty points)
attributes” of places, is determined by the values, earned fairly high scores. In our study, freedom
which we define as forms of personal preference was associated with individual liberty, the ability
that structure our assessments of things. We did to do what one wants to do, achieve one’s ambi-
not analyze the intersections between values tions, and assert one’s personality. Respect was
and factors for each participant; however, the associated with “regard” for oneself and others,
overall results suggest that it would be worth- politeness, courtesy. Although these two values
while to investigate how, in each individual, the proved to be fairly meaningful to participants, it
values determine the social behaviours associ- is still surprising to see that, in fourth place, free-
ated with construction of belonging. The value dom ranks fairly low among the most popular val-
that stood out as the most important in foster- ues, given that it is fairly customary to consider it
ing belonging to a place is fraternity (forty-six as the primary motivation for the migration pro-
points). For the purposes of analyzing the partici- cess. The three other values participants cited
pants’ statements, this value included anything scored much lower: piety (eight points), honesty
pertaining to the family, friendship, mutual assis- (three points) and financial wealth (three points).
tance, and solidarity. Fraternity refers to very With respect to piety, defined as attachment to
religion (devotion, zeal), it is interesting to note
2 The Quebec Charter of Values was a draft charter the discrepancy between participants’ diligence
of secularism. It aimed to establish the common rules
of a secular state and to regulate requests for accom- in religious practice, as expressed in the sociode-
modation. It also proposed to prohibit the wearing mographic questionnaire (75% practice often),
of conspicuous religious symbols by government em- and its appeal as a factor fostering the sense
ployees.
96Open Forum | Factors and Ethical Values NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021
of place attachment. This could be due to the guide was of course designed based on a pre-
fact that the vast majority of study participants determined theoretical framework, but it was
(or their parents, if the participants were born in sufficiently “open” to allow participants to tell
Canada) did not choose to leave their country of their stories. Our results show that there is clear
origin on primarily religious grounds (stigmatiza- interest in opening up the “space of subjectiv-
tion or religious violence in their country of ori- ity” to establish connections between certain
gin), but rather for reasons associated with their personality structures, such as ethical or moral
well-being and safety, or to provide their children values, which shape thought and behaviour, and
with a better future. Participants who discussed the socialization process usually highlighted by
this issue certainly valued the presence of places research into these matters.
of worship in their neighbourhood but, except in As we note in the introduction, studies on the
one case (participant thirty-eight), they did not sense of belonging often revolve around clinical
seem to have a negative view of the host soci- or social psychology, highlighting its importance
ety’s relatively low level of religious zeal. in personal psychic balance. Most such studies
also draw on quantitative methodologies that
Comparison of results with results in the current are based on the statistical analysis of answers
literature to closed questions (frequently including Likert
The literature develops several models for accul- scales). Like the studies on acculturation, studies
turation and integration. The most well-known on the sense of belonging start from a theoreti-
are: Berry’s Bi-Dimensional Model of Accultura- cal framework (construct) whose contours can be
tion, which places the various degrees of accul- established and measured using psychometric
turation on a continuum that is bounded by the instruments (Hagerty & Patusky 1995). In stud-
culture of origin on one side and the host soci- ies on belonging, the theoretical framework is
ety’s culture on the other; it deals with behav- built around two notions: 1) the feeling of being
iours such as assimilation, integration, separa- valued by others and one’s environment; 2) the
tion or segregation and marginalization (Berry feeling of being suited to a group or environment
1997); Rudmin’s Acculturative Learning Model, by means of shared characteristics (Hagerty et
which puts a great deal of emphasis on internal al. 1996). Even if they challenge subjects’ self-
factors like personal motivation and the result- assessments of their emotions and feelings, the
ing learning process (Rudmin 2003); and the studies aim to measure an individual’s “fit”; that
Multidimensional Intercultural Training Accul- is, how others see him or her, and how they
turation Model (MITA), which adds variables navigate the pre-existing standards that regulate
to take into consideration the situation of refu- social interactions. This perspective on the actors
gees who are displaced abruptly due to tragic in belonging or acculturation (the individual, oth-
events such as armed conflicts (Fathi et al. 2018). ers, the environment and its standards) is con-
A critical analysis of these models reveals that, strained to a somewhat superficial type of “func-
methodologically, the research into accultura- tionalism.” Yet, given the central role they play in
tion has neglected phenomenological research an individual’s cognitive universe, it is fairly natu-
that focuses on lived experience and perception ral to consider ethical and moral values as the
in favour of “confirmatory” studies intended to underpinnings of evaluation and social behav-
validate existing models (Chirkov 2009). This is iour pertaining to the development of a sense
one reason we opted to privilege a data collec- of place connection. Clearly, a qualitative study
tion method that allowed participants to explain such as ours is not as generalizable as quantita-
how, in their opinion, the encounter with the tive research, but our respectable sample size
host society was shaped through the develop- and the clarity of the results tend to suggest that
ment of their sense of belonging. The interview values offer some interesting explanatory power
97NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021 Yanick Farmer for understanding connection to place. We could is interesting because it raises the issue of the even add that, given the very intimate relation- preponderance of “deep” psychological dimen- ship between ethical or moral values and person- sions, such as values and needs, in the ranking ality, they have a type of “anteriority” in the psy- of preferences for places’ external attributes. It chic economy that helps grasp the acculturation provides a better understanding of why factors and integration behaviour they trigger. that have a more indirect influence on people’s In studies on place attachment, the psycho- lives, such as laws and the political system, are metric perspective also dominates (Brown & Ray- perceived to be less significant. This once again mond 2007; Knez 2005; Shamai & Ilatov 2005; refers back to the idea of valences (connections Williams & Vaske 2003). The most frequent vari- between subjective or psychological determi- ables used in measuring it are place dependence nants such as values and external attributes) and place identity. Like the studies on sense that we mentioned earlier. Here, while our study of belonging, the studies on place attachment opens up a new perspective on values and their explore such things as a person’s general emo- role in the dynamics of connection to place, it tional bond with a place, without using more leaves the matter of the shared place of needs detailed psychological variables like values. As and values in this dynamic unanswered. Dealing for the attachment studies’ consideration of a with it would require some reflection on the dis- place’s “external” characteristics (physical, spa- tinctions between values and needs, which was tial, social, cultural, etc.), they spend very little not the study’s objective. time on the specific context of the relationship between immigrants and the places where they Study limitations choose to remake their lives. Our study identi- In our opinion, the study has some limitations in fied some of these key factors for communities terms of generalizing the results and reproducing that are very understudied in Quebec. Here, them in similar contexts. The first and no doubt note that our results for the ranking of factors the most significant limitation is the language that foster belonging converge with other results barrier. Here, the barrier cannot be reduced sim- in educational psychology for place attachment ply to transitioning from one language to another, predictors (Lewicka 2010). as in going from French to English and vice versa. To conclude our comparison of the results Rather, it involves radically different lexical reg- with the existing literature, it seems relevant to isters. For example, it was not always easy to mention needs theory, insofar as it may be fairly convey to some participants what a concept obvious to think there is a connection between like “belonging” means. It took time to explain a an individual’s hierarchy of needs, that person’s notion that, for some, was not self-evident. Even values, and stated preferences with respect to a though we believe we were able to overcome place. The environmental psychology literature this barrier through dialogue, it seems reason- on place attachment primarily looks at attach- able to assert that this obstacle had an impact ment theory (Morgan 2010; Giuliani 2003). How- on the results. The results could potentially have ever, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (1943) identi- been different with communities in which this fies fundamental needs that can easily be asso- lexical barrier was absent. ciated with factors or values that influence the The second limitation also relates to the lan- dynamics of connection to place. Thus, beyond guage barrier. Participants were not always able physiological needs, which we can overlook to name the “factors” or “values.” The interview given the study’s context, the safety, belong- guide therefore planned to make suggestions. ing and love, esteem, and self-actualization can Clearly, this approach may have “guided” the no doubt be related to factors or values evoked answers in some cases. Although the interview- in our results. Conceptually, this association ers strove to be neutral, it can still be easier for 98
Open Forum | Factors and Ethical Values NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021
participants to limit their answers to the selec- of South Asian communities who remain largely
tions offered. That said, the team was aware of unknown in French-speaking Canada, and per-
this obstacle from the outset. In spite of this, we haps elsewhere. Moreover, by investigating the
believe we were able to capture the essence role of values in the construction of a sense of
of what the participants wanted to share belonging, the study seems to show the rele-
with us. vance of linking certain fundamental psychologi-
The third limitation concerns the methodolog- cal functions and their impact on the affinities
ical approach used. If data collection had been (or valences) that develop between the social
restricted solely to the use of questionnaires, it behaviours of a place’s residents, and the place’s
would have been possible to develop a quantita- apparent characteristics.
tive research design and carry out statistical anal- While the qualitative methodological approach
yses that delineate the scope of the results more privileged in our study--predominantly phenom-
sharply. However, we believe that establishing enological--enabled a better grasp of the subjec-
an in-depth dialogue with the participants, one tive meaning that a place’s residents assign to
that was characterized by trust, authorizes us to the construction of their sense of belonging to
assert that we were able to more clearly estab- the host society during a specific migratory jour-
lish the meaning of their thoughts on the issue ney, the fact remains that the entire issue of the
of belonging. A closed questionnaire would have relations between the internal variables associ-
denied us this opportunity. We should add that ated with individual personalities and the exter-
the study included other facets and objectives nal variables associated with place attributes
not dealt with here. Lastly, with respect to data could lead to further discoveries. For example, it
triangulation, we opted not to apply systematic would be very useful to know how the valences
cross-checks between the data from the sociode- mentioned earlier in the article evolve over time
mographic questionnaire and data from the in the framework of a longitudinal study design.
interviews. This is because, in light of a review In the context of the mass migrations of the
of the verbatims, we judged that triangulation early twenty-first century and the political
would not really enable a better understand- upheaval they triggered, the issue of belong-
ing of the construction of a sense of belonging ing, and the resulting social cohesion are of
within these communities. Certain variables that clear interest, as shown by the many studies
could intuitively seem to favour development that explore this question. However, beyond the
of a strong sense of belonging, such as date of enthusiasm it generates, the theme does create
arrival or place of birth, did not seem significant. many controversies in which ideological consider-
We therefore put them aside in the more in- ations blithely mingle with scientific imperatives.
depth analysis. This mixed genre is seen fairly often in the mass
media, in which the handling of social phenom-
Conclusion ena also follows marketing rules, but it should be
In our opinion, our study has successfully spot- avoided in scientific research and in the public
lighted key factors that help make a place appeal- policy it is supposed to orient. The desire to let
ing to newly arrived immigrant communities. The the facts speak for themselves, and to separate
results appear especially interesting because science from ideology, lies at the heart of this
they were obtained through the contribution study’s design, and its dissemination.
99NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021 Yanick Farmer
References BARBEAU, M.-È., M. I. Brouillet, and C. Poirier.
ABOU, S. 1981. L’identité culturelle : relation inter 2013. Interactions quotidiennes et sentiment
ethnique et problème d’acculturation. Paris: d’appartenance territoriale dans le récit de per-
Hachette-Anthropos. sonnes immigrantes vivant à Rimouski. Mémoire
ABOUGUENDIA, M., and K.A. Noels. 2001. “Gen- de maîtrise en communication. Montréal, Uni-
eral and acculturation‐related daily hassles and versité du Québec à Montréal, 171 p.
psychological adjustment in first‐and second‐ BANTING, K., and S. Soroka. 2012. “Minority na-
generation South Asian immigrants to Cana- tionalism and immigrant integration in Cana-
da”. International Journal of Psychology 36(3): da”. Nations and Nationalism 18(1): 156-176.
163-173. BANTING, K. G., T.J. Courchene, and F.L Seidle.
ADHOPIA, A. 1993. The Hindus of Canada: A per- 2007. Belonging?: Diversity, recognition and
spective on Hindu Canadians’ cultural heritage. shared citizenship in Canada. Institute for
Mississauga: Inderlekh publications. Research on Public Policy-Institut de recherche
AGER, A., and A. Strang. 2008. “Understanding en politiques publiques.
integration: A conceptual framework”. Journal of BAUMEISTER, R. F., and M.R. Leary. 1995. “The
Refugee Studies 21(2): 166-191. need to belong: desire for interpersonal at-
ALPHANDERY, P., and M. Bergues. 2004. “Terri- tachments as a fundamental human motiva-
toires en questions: pratiques des lieux, usages tion”. Psychological Bulletin 117(3): 497-529.
d’un mot”. Ethnologie française 34(1): 5-12. BERRY, J. W. 1997. “Immigration, acculturation,
ALTMAN, I., and S.M. Low. 2012. Place attachment. and adaptation”. Applied Psychology 46(1): 5-34.
Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media. BELL, V. 1999. Performativity and Belonging. Lon-
ANDERSEN, S. M., S. Chen, and C. Carter. 2000. don: Sage.
“Fundamental human needs: Making social cog- BOLLEN, K. A., and R.H. Hoyle. 1990. “Perceived
nition relevant”. Psychological Inquiry 11(4): cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examina-
269-275. tion”. Social Forces 69(2): 479-504.
ASHMORE, R. D., K. Deaux, and T. McLaughlin- BONNEMAISON, J. 1981. Voyage autour du terri-
Volpe. 2004. “An organizing framework for col- toire. L’Espace géographique, 10(4): 249-262.
lective identity: articulation and significance BOUCHARD, G., C. Taylor. 2008. Fonder l’avenir.
of multidimensionality”. Psychological bulletin, Le temps de la conciliation. Commission de con-
130(1): 80. sultation sur les pratiques d’accommodement
AVANZA, M., and G. Laferté. 2005. “Dépasser la reliées aux différences culturelles. Québec: Saint-
«construction des identités»? Identification, Lazare.
image sociale, appurtenance”. Genèses (4): BRETTELL, C., D. Reed-Danahay. 2011. Civic en-
134-152. gagements: The citizenship practices of Indian
AYCAN, Z., and R.N. Kanungo. 1998. “Impact of and Vietnamese immigrants. Stanford: Stanford
acculturation on socialization beliefs and be- University Press.
havioral occurences among Indo-Canadian im- BROWN, G., and C. Raymond. 2007. “The relation-
migrants”. Journal of comparative family studies, ship between place attachment and landscape
29 (3), 451-467. values: Toward mapping place attachment”. Ap-
BAKHSHAEI, M., and M. McAndrew. 2011. “La plied Geography 27(2): 89-111.
Diplomation au secondaire des jeunes Québé- CAPONIO, T., and M. Borkert. 2010. The local di-
cois de la communauté sud-asiatique”. Canadian mension of migration policymaking. Amsterdam:
Ethnic Studies 43(1): 109-128. Amsterdam University Press.
BALL-ROKEACH, S. J., Y.C. Kim, and S. Matei. 2001. CASTELS, S. 2002. “Migration and community for-
“Storytelling neighborhood: Paths to belonging mation under conditions of globalization”. Inter-
in diverse urban environments”. Communication national Migration Review 36(4): 1143-1168.
Research 28(4): 392-428. CHIRKOV, V. 2009. “Critical psychology of accultur-
BANERJEE, S., and H. Coward. 2009. “Hindus in ation: What do we study and how do we study
Canada: Negotiating Identity in a ‘Different’ it, when we investigate acculturation?” Inter-
Homeland”. Religion and Ethnicity in Canada, 30. national Journal of Intercultural Relations 33(2):
94-105.
100Open Forum | Factors and Ethical Values NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021
COMMUNAUTE METROPOLITAINE DE MONTREAL ciation aux identités collectives. Ottawa : Citoy-
2013. “Le Grand Montréal parmi les principaux enneté et Immigration Canada.
oles d’immigration en Amérique du Nord”. Per- GIULIANI, M.V. 2003. Theory of attachment and
spective Grand Montréal 24(8). place attachment. New York: Routledge.
CONINCK, F. 2001. L’homme flexible et ses ap- GOUVERNMENT DU QUEBEC 2013. Projet de loi
partenances. Paris: L’Harmattan. 60 : charte affirmant les valeurs de laïcité et de
DEBENDETTI, A. 2005. “Le concept d’attachement neutralité religieuse de l’État ainsi que d’égalité
au lieu: état de l’art et voies de recherche dans le entre les hommes et les femmes et encadrant les
contexte du lieu de loisirs”. Management & Ave- demandes d’accommodement. Québec: les Pub-
nir 5(3): 151-160. lications du Québec.
DEWING, M. 2009. Le multiculturalisme canadien. GUERIN-PACE, F. 2006. “Sentiment d’appartenance
Service d’information et de recherche parlemen- et territoires identitaires”. L’Espace geogra-
taires de la Bibliothèque du Parlement. Ottawa: phique 35(4): 298-308.
Imprimeur de la Reine. GUILBERT, L. 2005. “L’expérience migratoire et le
DHRUVARAJAN, V. 1993. “Ethnic cultural retention sentiment d’appartenance”. Ethnologies, 27(1):
and transmission among first generation Hindu 5-32.
Asian Indians in a Canadian prairie city”. Journal HAGERTY, B. M., and A. Williams. 1999. The ef-
of Comparative Family Studies 24(1): 63-79. fects of sense of belonging, social support, con-
DI MEO, G. 2004. “Composantes spatiales, formes flict, and loneliness on depression. Nursing Re-
et processus géographiques des identités//Spa- search 48(4): 215-219.
tial components, geographical forms and pro- HAGERTY, B. M., R.A. Williams, J.C. Coyne, and M.R.
cess of identities”. Annales de géographie 113 Early. 1996. Sense of belonging and indicators of
(638): 339-362. social and psychological functioning. Archives of
DORAIS, L. J. 2004. La construction de l’identité. Dis- Psychiatric Nursing 10(4): 235-244.
cours et constructions identitaires. Québec : HAGERTY, B. M., and K. Patusky. 1995. Developing
Presses de l’Université Laval. a measure of sense of belonging. Nursing Re-
ENNS, R., Kirova, A., and D. Connolly. 2013. “Exam- search 44(1): 9-13.
ining bonding and bridging activities in the con- HECKMANN, F., and D. Schnapper. 2016. The in-
text of a common spaces approach to integra- tegration of immigrants in European societies:
tion”. Canadian Ethnic Studies 45(3): 39-63. National differences and trends of convergence.
FARMER, Y. and G. Versailles. 2019. “L’éthique des Berlin : Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
relations publiques. Des repères pour bien agir HIDALGO, M. C., and B. Hernandez. 2001. Place
en situation. Dans S. Yates (dir.)”. In: Introduction attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions.
aux relations publiques. Montréal : PUQ. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21(3): 273-
FATHI, A., U. El-Awad, T. Reinelt, and F. Petermann. 281.
2018. “A Brief Introduction to the Multidimen- HILL, D. L. 2006. Sense of belonging as connected-
sional Intercultural Training Acculturation Model ness, American Indian worldview, and mental
(MITA) for Middle Eastern Adolescent Refugees”. health. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing 20(5):
International Journal of Environmental Research 210-216.
and Public Health 15(7): 1516. HOGG, M. A., and J.C. Turner. 1985. Interpersonal
FIORE, A. M. 2013. “Le capital social collectif des attraction, social identification and psychological
Sud-Asiatiques de Montréal: De l’entre soi au group formation. European Journal of Social Psy-
mainstream”. Canadian Ethnic Studies 45(1): chology 15(1): 51-66.
237-260. JENSON, J. 1998. Les contours de la cohésion so-
FISHER, G.N. 2010. Les concepts fondamentaux de ciale: l’état de la recherche au Canada. Ottawa:
la psychologie sociale. Paris: Dunod. Réseaux canadiens de recherche en politiques
FORREST, R., and A. Kearns. 2001. “Social cohesion, publiques.
social capital and the neighbourhood”. Urban JEYASEELAN, L., S. Kumar, N. Neelakantan, A. Peed-
Studies 38(12): 2125-2143. icayil, R. Pillai, and N. Duvvury. 2007. “Physical
GILKINSON, T., G. Sauvé. 2012. Immigrants récents, spousal violence against women in India: some
immigrants antérieurs et natifs du Canada: asso-
101NEW DIVERSITIES 23 (1), 2021 Yanick Farmer
risk factors”. Journal of Biosocial Science 39(5): PARE, S. 2008. “Enclaves ethniques à Montréal et
657-670. Toronto: les cas de Victoria à Côte-des-Neiges
KAVANAUGH, P. R. 2013. “The continuum of sex- et de Roncesvalles à Parkdale”. Canadian Ethnic
ual violence: Women’s accounts of victimization Studies 40(3): 91-108.
in urban nightlife”. Feminist Criminology 8(1): PHINNEY, J. S., G. Horenczyk, K. Liebkind, K., and
20-39. P. Vedder. 2001. “Ethnic identity, immigra-
KNEZ, I. 2005. “Attachment and identity as related tion, and well‐being: An interactional perspec-
to a place and its perceived climate”. Journal of tive”. Journal of Social Issues 57(3): 493-510.
Environmental Psychology 25(2): 207-218. POIRIER, C. 2006. “Parc Extension: le renouveau
LACZKO, L. S. 2005. National and local attachments d’un quartier d’intégration à Montréal”. Les
in a changing world system: Evidence from an in- cahiers du Gres 6(2): 51-68.
ternational survey. International Review of Soci- RAJIVA, M., and A. D’Sylva. 2014. “‘I am Goan
ology—Revue Internationale de Sociologie 15(3): [not] Indian’: postcolonial ruptures in the South
517-528. Asian diaspora”. Canadian Ethnic Studies 46(1):
LELOUP, X., and M. Radice. 2008. Les nouveaux 145-167.
territoires de l’ethnicité. Québec: Presses de RAVLIN, E. C., and B.M. Meglino. 1987. “Effect of
l’Université Laval. values on perception and decision making: A
LEWICKA, M. 2010. “What makes neighborhood study of alternative work values measures”. Jour-
different from home and city? Effects of place nal of Applied Psychology, 72(4): 666-673.
scale on place attachment”. Journal of Environ- REED-DANAHAY, D., and C.B. Brettell. 2008. Citi-
mental Psychology 30(1): 35-51. zenship, political engagement, and belonging:
LI, P.S. 2000. La diversité culturelle au Canada : immigrants in Europe and the United States.
la construction sociale des différences raciales. New Brunswick, NJ : Rutgers University Press.
Division de la recherche et de la statistique RICHER, S. F., R.J. Vallerand. 1998. “Construc-
Ottawa: Imprimeur de la Reine. tion et validation de l’échelle du sentiment
LO MONACO, G., S. Delouvée, and P. Rateau. 2016. d’appartenance sociale (ÉSAS)”. European re-
Les représentations sociales. Théories, méthodes view of applied psychology 48(2): 129-138.
et applications. Bruxelles: De Boeck. RICOEUR, P. 1990. Soi-même comme un autre. Par-
MARKUS, H. R., and S. Kitayama. 1991. “Culture is : Éditions du Seuil.
and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, RIOUX, L., and R. Mokounkolo. 2010. “Validation
and motivation”. Psychological Review 98(2): en langue français d’une échelle d’ancrage terri-
224-253. torial”. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/
MASLOW, A. H. 1943. “A theory of human motiva- Revue canadienne des sciences du comporte-
tion”. Psychological Review 50(4): 370-396. ment 42(3): 150-157.
MCMILLAN, D. W., and D.M. Chavis. 1986. “Sense RUDMIN, F. W. 2003. “Critical history of the accul-
of community: A definition and theory”. Journal turation psychology of assimilation, separation,
of Community Psychology 14(1): 6-23. integration, and marginalization”. Review of gen-
MEINTEL, D. 1993. Transnationalité et transeth- eral psychology 7(1): 3-37.
nicité chez les jeunes issus de milieux immigrés SCHLACHET, P. J. (2000). “The once and future
à Montréal. Revue européenne des migrations group: vicissitudes of belonging”. Group 24(2-3):
internationales 9(3): 63-79. 123-132.
MICHALOWSKI, I. 2005. “What is the Dutch Inte- SHAMAI, S., and Z. Ilatov. 2005. “Measuring sense
gration Model, and has it Failed?” Focus Migra- of place: Methodological aspects”. Tijdschrift
tion Policy Brief 1: 1-4. voor economische en sociale geografie 96(5):
MORGAN, P. 2010. “Towards a developmental the- 467-476.
ory of place attachment”. Journal of environmen- SPOONLEY, P., and R. Peace. 2007. “Social Cohe-
tal psychology 30(1): 11-22. sion and Indicator Frameworks in New Zea-
ORIOL, M. 1985. “L’ordre des identités”. Revue eu- land”. Metropolis World Bulletin 7: 9-10.
ropéenne des migrations internationales, 1(2): STEELE, W., and C. Legacy. 2017. “Critical urban in-
171-185. frastructure”. Urban Policy and Research, 35(1):
1-6.
102You can also read
