Alexander Dolitsky: Bridges to belonging, assimilation, inclusion

By ALEXANDER DOLITSKY

As a native of the former Soviet Union, I left the country as a political refugee in 1977, renouncing my Soviet citizenship. After a year in limbo in Italy and Austria, I arrived in the US in 1978, becoming a US citizen in 1983. So, I had to acculturate, and eventually assimilate, several times in my life; otherwise, I would not be accepted by a foreign society.

Acculturation is the adoption of cultural traits, norms and customs by one society from another; the changes in practice or beliefs that can be incorporated in the value structure of the society, without destruction of its functional autonomy.

Assimilation is the end-product of a process of acculturation, in which an individual has changed so much as to become dissociated from the value system of his/her group, or in which the entire group disappears as an autonomously functioning social system.

Resistance to assimilate (e.g., Somalis in Minnesota, Muslims in Michigan and Western Europe) can weaken social cohesion by fostering segregated communities, increasing intercultural conflict and eroding a shared national identity. When newcomers do not adopt the host culture’s common language, norms of behavior and social structures, it can lead to parallel societies, diminished trust, reduced economic mobility and intense cultural polarization, according to UIA’s Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential.  

Lack of assimilation weakens social cohesion include:

Social Fragmentation and Segregation: Failure to integrate often results in the formation of isolated, homogenous pockets, preventing the development of a unified public culture.

Conflict and Reduced Trust: Lack of shared norms can increase social friction and reduce trust between minority and majority populations, which are foundational to social cohesion.

Weakened National Identity: If large segments of the population do not share a common language or cultural heritage, a society may struggle to maintain shared goals and unity.

Economic and Social Gaps: A lack of structural integration—such as failure to participate in the workforce or education systems of the host nation—can exacerbate economic inequality and differences in segmented assimilation, where children of immigrants may face downward mobility.

Conversely, some perspectives suggest that enforced assimilation can cause resentment, and that a “melting pot” approach can create a “marginal man” experience, where individuals are caught between cultures.

This situation presents three primary outcomes:

(1) Newcomers/immigrants must pursue acculturation and eventual assimilation to avoid significant cultural friction. Newcomers face obstacles and cross-cultural difficulties if they fail to assimilate into the host culture.

(2) Newcomers/conquering groups must establish mechanisms to govern indigenous or established populations under a new, imposed framework (Europeans vs. Native Americans; Russians vs. Native Muslims). Imposed regimes must enforce their rules over existing societies (e.g., historical settler colonialism).

(3) Conquered populations are forced to choose between submission, continuous resistance, or displacement/migration. In short, conquered societies face a bleak choice: submit, resist with high risk or relocate.

This narrative outlines my lifelong journey of forced adaptation—from Soviet refugee in 1977 to American citizen in 1983 and beyond—highlighting that survival requires deep acculturation and assimilation to avoid marginalization. It frames the immigrant experience and the plight of conquered populations as historically embedded, relentless cycles of either enforced submission, resistance or displacement.

1. The Necessity of Acculturation and Assimilation:

The Refugee Perspective: As noted in the prompt, leaving the former Soviet Union (a trend that began in the early 1970s, allowing limited exit for some), forced a total reinvention of identity.

Overcoming Friction: Acculturation (learning cultural norms of the host nation) is a survival mechanism. Without it, immigrants face severe economic and social obstacles.

The Assimilation Paradox: While adaptation allows acceptance, it often entails losing aspects of the native culture, creating a perpetual state of being “between worlds.”

2. Imposed Frameworks and Settler Colonialism:

Imposed Governance: Newcomers, or conquering groups, do not just enter a new society; they influence its rules. They must create new administrative, cultural and political structures to replace existing ones.

Historical Examples: Europeans vs. Native Americans context, where Western legal and land-use systems were imposed, or Russian imperial expansion, where Russians vs. Native Muslims and other ethnic minorities involved managing indigenous populations under a Russian, often Orthodox, framework.

Enforcement: This mechanism relies on top-down execution, often leading to deep systemic inequalities that persist for generations.

3. The Choice of the Conquered/Displaced:

The Bleak Trilemma: Populations on the receiving end of migration or conquest face a tragic choice—submission, resistance, displacement.

Submission: Accepting the new order to survive, often resulting in the loss of their own cultural traditions (e.g., vanishing of Eyak language in Alaska).

Resistance: Engaging in conflict, which offers a slim chance of liberation but carries a high risk of destruction.

Displacement/Migration: Leaving their homes and creating new “limbo” situations in unfamiliar societies.

Embedded Historical Patterns:

These are not merely personal experiences but recurring patterns throughout history, often described as “sad, but true.” The interplay of power, displacement and adaptation remains a constant feature of human society. Indeed, history is not a final verdict; it is a compass.

My personal history of immigration highlights a fundamental sociological tension: the difference between voluntary acculturation for survival and conscious assimilation for control of my own destiny. Expanding on three primary outcomes described above (submission, resistance, displacement), we can see how these dynamics shape both—quality and safety of individual lives and global history of human movement and adaptation from its very ancient beginning to present.

1. Acculturation and Assimilation as Survival:

The “Limbo” Effect: My one year in Italy and Austria represented a “liminal” state, where I was legally and culturally invisible. In this stage, acculturation was not just about etiquette; it was about securing semi-legal status and economic safety.

The Cost of Friction: If an immigrant refuses to adapt, they face “cultural friction“—social isolation, employment barriers and a perpetual “outsider” status. By becoming a US citizen in 1983, I completed a formal contract of assimilation that traded my original national identity—Soviet Jew, for the protections of a new one—American.

2. The Conqueror’s Framework or Structural Imposition:

Institutional Erasure: When the power dynamic is reversed—the newcomers do not adapt—they overwrite. Whether it was the Russian Empire’s expansion into Muslim Central Asia, Caucuses and Azerbaijan, or European settlement in the Americas, the newcomers brought their own legal, religious and linguistic systems.

The Governance of “The Other“: Instead of seeking acceptance, the conquering group creates a hierarchy. They don’t want to be accepted by the indigenous population; they want to be obeyed. This creates a permanent state of tension, where the host culture is treated as a hurdle to be cleared or managed.

3. The Conqueror’s Dilemma and The Price of Resistance:

For those on the receiving end of expansion, the choices are rarely good, only varying degrees of difficulties.

Submission (Mimicry): Some choose to adopt the conqueror’s ways to survive or maintain status (e.g., local elites under colonial rule). This often leads to a loss of original cultural heritage.

Resistance: This is often met with overwhelming force, as seen in the various Indian Wars in the Americas.

Displacement (the refugee path): When the imposed framework of a regime (like the Soviet Union) becomes unlivable for a specific group (like Soviet Jews), the only remaining option is migration.

The Synthesis:

The experience of Soviet political refugees like me serves as a unique bridge for cross-cultural understanding. I was “conquered” by a ruthless Soviet regime that stripped my rights and pride of my ethnicity and religion, leading to my displacement. However, upon reaching the US, I shifted into choosing acculturation and assimilation to build a new life.

It is a sad pattern because it suggests that cultural peace usually requires one side to surrender its original identity to a dominant culture, whether through a quiet pressure of social integration or a violent force of conquest. In short, for many, physical survival is more important than ethnic pride or struggles to maintain authentic ethnic identity.

On the positive side, while every historical era presents unique obstacles, humanity consistently demonstrates the resilience to survive, adapt and eventually thrive.

The author was born and raised in the former Soviet Union before settling in the U.S. in 1978. He moved to Juneau in 1986 where he taught Russian studies and Archaeology at the University of Alaska Southeast, and Social Studies Teacher at the Alyeska Central School of the Alaska Department of Education. From 1990 to 2022, he served as a director and president of the Alaska-Siberia Research Center, publishing in the fields of anthropology, history, archaeology and ethnography. Find him on Amazon.com.

Alexander Dolitsky: The new mosaic of Islam and the future of Western democracy

Alexander Dolitsky: Greenland’s future in geopolitics, resources, and sovereignty

Alexander Dolitsky: Brief history of America’s westward expansion and exploration of Greenland

Alexander Dolitsky: Assimilating to the dominant culture is a vital requirement