2r LIBRARY I Michigan State g Unlverslty PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE L_ :1- ‘ j ' J! MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution czbkcthnprns-M no.3 mu AMERICAN HOSTS' PERSPECTIVES ON THEIR RELATIONSHIPS WETH SOUTHEAST ASIAN REFUGEES IN URBAN SETTINGS - A.FIELDWORK STUDY BY Gary John Bekker A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration ABSTRACT AMERICAN HOSTS' PERSPECTIVES ON THEIR RELATIONSHIPS WITH SOUTHEAST ASIAN REFUGEES IN URBAN SETTINGS - A FIELDWORK STUDY BY Gary John Bekker This fieldwork research describes and interprets the experiences of Americans who had entered voluntary helping relationships with Southeast Asian refugees. The dissertation provides insights into the activities which occurred within the relationships, the hosts' perspectives on how the relationships developed, factors which the hosts saw as hindering the development and sustenance of the relationships, and insights into the meaning which the relationships had for the hosts. ‘Within the general purposes of description and interpretation, a key intention was to develop grounded theory by which to analyze and explain the American's experiences. The study proceeded from concerns which emerged from a review of literature in several areas: theories of host-stranger relationships, especially that of Simmel; intercultural relations; tourism; refugee resettlement; and fieldwork methodology. The research used comparative and interpretive fieldwork methods. Open-ended interviews were conducted with forty white Americans who had related to Southeast Asian refugees. Some of these subjects had been involved in formal refugee sponsorship. A few participant-observations were conducted in which the Americans were observed interacting with refugees. A comparative analysis of the subjects' statements yielded four orientations termed familial, friendship, client and task, These orientations indicate the dominant focus of a given subject's talk; they do not offer mutually exclusive categories. An individual American may have manifested two or more orientations toward various refugees or toward the same refugee on separate occasions or in different situations. However, one orientation was seen to dominate a given subject's understanding. The grounded theorygof identity acquisition posits that host-refugee relationships can endure and become meaningful to the hosts as the hosts establish an identity for themselves over against the culturally other. The theory has three components: definition of the self, definition of the self in relation to the other and definition of the relationship. The dissertation offers conclusions regarding the findings for an understanding of intercultural relations involving hosts and culturally different strangers, recommendations for further research, and recommendations for training programs for Americans involved in refugee resettlement. To Norma, for reasons she knows only too well. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In the course of conducting the research resulting in this dissertation I stretched all sorts of relationships to the point that I know now how strong they are. The dissertation itself as well as the future results of the professional skills which I learned through the doctoral program represent my gift to many people in thanks for the time and effort which they invested in me. I wish to record my appreciation to the following people for the guidance, advice and support which saw me through the dissertation. Forty-one people endured at least a one hour interview so that I could gather the data which I need for this dissertation. Several permitted me to observe them interacting with refugees. Not one of these people denied any request for information. I hope that I have portrayed them accurately and sensitively. They deserve the appreciation of our entire society for their efforts on behalf of refugees. I thank them for granting me access to their lives. Librarians at Michigan State University and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary cheerfully and efficiently obtained all sorts of literature held by other libraries. In this regard I thank Beth Rutledge, Eric Stancliff and Mary Riso. Thanks also to Hugh Rutledge for tracking down journal articles in the library of Boston University. I certainly did not take all of the wise advice offered by my guidance committee. Had I listened more carefully to Douglas Campbell, S. Joseph Levine and Richard McLeod I might have finished sooner and done a better jOb. I appreciate very much the ready access which I enjoyed to their time and energy, and especially their careful reading of the manuscript. Much of what I am and can do as a teacher, researcher and human being I owe to Ted ward. He never quit showing the way, giving sound advice and requiring another needed revision. I hope that the quality of any professional work I am called to do in the future will be sufficient to give him satisfaction for all the effort that he has invested in me. Had it not been for Geneva Speas, I doubt that I would have met all of Michigan State's degree requirements. She kept me on track. Geneva offers an extraordinary example of a godly, diligent servant. Various colleagues at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary encouraged me along the way. My thanks go especially to former Dean Garth Rosell and present Dean Sidney Dewaal. President Robert E. Cboley's personal interest in me and support for my work is much appreciated. Thanks as well to colleague Nigel Kerr and to Ajith Fernando. Several students at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary prayed for me and cajoled me into finally finishing this dissertation. Joe Moore and David Siever deserve special mention. Brent Armistead helped by proofreading an early draft of the manuscript. My friend Daniel Jessen started out as a sympathetic colleague, became a reflection partner and ended up collaborating on the project. He is probably one of very few people who will ever be able to say that he has read every last word of my dissertation. Thanks. I cannot begin to express appreciation for the ways in which my vi parents, my wife's parents and her entire family supported me throughout the work on the dissertation. My word of thanks here will have to do. My children, Tammy, Patrick and Lisa, surrendered enormous amounts of time to enable me to work on the dissertation. I have many promises to keep to them. This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Norma for reasons which she does know only too well. It will take more than the rest of our lives together for me to return to her the appreciation I have for her constant support, love, prayer, proofreading and faith in me. I hope that no one finds a mistake in this dissertation. If they do, it's mine. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF F Ims O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 CHAPTER I. II. THE PMLEM O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Rationale 0 O O O 0 O 9 O O O O O O O O O Rationale for Studying Any Set of Cultural Hosts Rationale for Studying American Hosts Rationale: Pragmatic Reasons subjeCtS O O O 0 O O O 0 Research Questions . . . Overview of the Research Definitions . . . . . . . . Procedure - Research Methods Technique and Instrument . . Delimitations . . . . . . . . Design variables . . . . . . Peculiarities of the hosts 0 O O O O O O O O O C O O C O t a Peculiarities of the refugee s r n ers Practical Considerations . . . . . . SW0 0 O O O O O I O O O O O O 0 O O PRECEDENTS IN THE LITERATURE . . . . . . Theories of Host-Stranger Relationships . Simmel's Conception of der Fremde . . Reactions to Simmel . . . . . . . . . McLemore's Analysis of the Literature concept of the Stranger . . . . . Research on Intercultural Relations . . . Touristesearch............ Direct Effects of Tourism contacts between wealthy of Refugees 9 O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O C C O O O O on the Tourists and Poor People and Poor Cbmmunities . Indirect Effects of Tourism Contacts between wealthy Tourists and Poor People and Poor Wities O O O O O O O O 0 O O O Q 0 O O O 0 Direct Effects of Tourism Contacts of wealthy Tourists on Technologically Advanced CWitieS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 viii Page xii 44 46 III. Indirect Effects of Tourism Contacts of wealthy Tourists on Technologically Advanced Wities O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Summary of Discussion on Tourism Research . . . . Research on Refugee Resettlement in the United States Mor.ter1sorl's StUdy O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Fein.s StUdy O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Literature Supporting the Rationale for Studying American Hosts of Refugees . . . . . . . . . . . contrast between United States and Canadian Sponsorship Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MethodologicalIssues................ sulmary O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O RESEARCH POPULATION AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Context: Overall Conditions under the Relationships were Established . . Research Context: Local conditions . Rationale for Selecting Subjects . . Population and Sample . . . . . . . Geographical Location . . . . . . . The Subjects Considered as a Whole Locating Subjects . . . . . . . . . Prxedures O O O O O O O O O O O O Background Questionnaire . . . Range of Ethnic Groups to Which Related O O O O O O O O O O O Open-ended Interviews . . . . . . . Observations . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Data Gathering Procedures Classification of the Procedures . . . . Negotiating Entry and Informed Consent . . Dealing with the Problem of Observer Effects mta maIYSj-s O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 5* o oeooeeoooP-o eHooeeoo oeeooomeeeooooeo g...- eeoooooemeooeeeeoe 5' V e idu FImIm O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Description of How American Host Subjects Understood Their Relationship to Southeast Asian Refugees . Familial Orientation: David and Dorothy as Examles O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Friend Orientation: NOrma as Example . . . . . . Client Orientation: Kenneth as Example . . . . . Task Orientation: Mark and Mary as Examples . An Outsider's Interpretation of Host Subjects' miences O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O General Features of American Subjects' Relationships with Refugees . . . . . . . . . Uncertainty as a Feature of American Host/Refugee Stranger Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . Practical problems encountered by the hosts . Relationships on the periphery . . . . . . . ix O O O O O eeeeeeeemeeeeeeoee 114 115 116 119 125 129 130 136 137 138 138 143 Summary of uncertainty factors . . . . . . . . Classification of the Kind of Group Which These sabjeCtS FCIT“ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Organizations as Initiators and Sustainers . Facilitating and Hindering Factors . . . . . Facilitating factors . . . . . . . . . . Hindering factors . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural, especially language differenw Gender-related problems . . . . . . LaCk 0f tine O O O O O O O O O O O Grounded Theory of Identity Acquisition . . . . Statement of the Theory . . . . . . . . . . Components of a Grounded Theory of Acquired Intercultural Identity . . . . . . . . Definition of the other and of the self relation to the other . . . . Definition of the relationship . Hypothetical Statement of the Theory conCIUSi-on O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o e e e o o o e e P-e :3 O O O O V. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY . . . . . . . CODClusj-OHS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Subjects Function in a Group Setting . . . . . . Relationships Tend to Remain at the Aoquaintance Level O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Implication of Sponsor Role . . . . . . . . . . . . Negotiating the Relationship into the Remainder of a HOSt'S Life O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . . . Suggestions for Redesign before Replicating . . Variations of the Present Research . . . . . . Extensions of the Present Research . . . . . . Examine ways in which contact affects ass imi lat ion O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Examine ways in which hosts compare with their melts O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Longitudinal studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . Features or factors distinguishing people who establish long-term relationships from those Who do nOt O O O O O O O O O O O O O Describe how salient communication difficulty is to the Americans . . . . . . . . . . . . Statistical validation of the four orientations Recommendations for Refugee Resettlement Programs . . . SW O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O REFERMS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 147 147 148 151 152 152 152 156 156 157 157 159 159 160 161 161 163 164 164 165 168 169 170 170 171 175 175 175 176 177 177 177 178 181 183 AP P MIES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . INTERVIEW PROTCXZ'OLS . . . . . . . . . 1. INITIAL INTERVIEW PROTCIXJL . . . . 2. REVISED INTERVIEW PROKXZOL . . . . CONSENT FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUBJECTS LISTED ALPHABETICALLY BY PSEUIIJNYMWITHAGE.......... EXAMPLE OF INDEX FRO‘I AN AUDIO TAPE OF AN INTERVIW O O O O O O O O O O O O RANGE OF CDNTACT SUBJECTS HAD WITH PEOPLE FROM VARIOUS CULTURAL GROUPS . EXAMPLESOFJOURNALENI‘RIES . . . . e 1. EXAMPLE OF A JOURNAL ENTRY CONTAIN- II‘ENOTESABOUTEVENTS. . . . . . 2. EXAMPLE OF A JOURNAL ENTRY GIVIM; AN EMERGING ASSERTION . . . . . . 3. EXAMPLE OFAJOURNALENTRY REFLEC- TINGONTHERESEARCHPRQIESS . . . xi 190 190 193 193 194 195 196 197 200 202 202 203 205 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Observed Situations of Actual Host-Stranger contaCt O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 3 2 Researcher's Previous Relationship with Subjects 30 3 Conceptualization of Simmel's Four Factors in Stranger-Host Relationships . . . . . . . . . 34 4 Cbnceptualizations of 'The Stranger' . . . . . . 36 5 Southeast Asian Refugees' Needs for Mental Health services O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 50 6 Possible Positions of Hosts and Strangers in weir M Gz.oup O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 61 7 Subjects Listed by Code, Age, Occupation and Marital Status O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 80 8 Location of 41 Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 9GroupsofSubjects...............84 lO Observations of Subjects Together . . . . . . . . 86 11 Recruitment of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 12 Ethnic Groups of Refugees with Whom Subjects Reported Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 13 Experiences Subjects Reported with People from AsianCountries...............97 l4 Staircase Model for Organizing Interviews . . . . 101 15 ways in Which Subjects were Interviewed . . . . . 104 16 Sources of Data Yielded by Interviews and mservations O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 107 17 Citation System for Identifying Sources of Data . 109 xii 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 American Hosts' Orientations Toward Southeast Asian Refugees . . . . . . . . . . Interview Segment: Mark and Mary - Tape lgz-leeeeeeeeeeeeeee Subjects' Responses to Background Questionnaire Query Regarding Fluency in Southeast Asian language S O O O O O O O O O O O O O Groupings of Subjects in Terms of Sponsorship . Interview Segment: Dan and Deborah - Tape 428-44200000000000000 Components of a Grounded Theory of Acquired Intercultural Identity . . . . . . Hypothetical Statement of the Theory of Acquired Intercultural Identity . . . . . . . . . . . Southeast Asian Refugee's Needs for Mental Health sex-Vices O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Possible Phase Sequence in Intercultural Re lat ionShipS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Possible Configuration of Orientations xiii 118 131 143 150 153 159 161 174 176 178 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM The purposes of this fieldwork research were to describe and interpret the experience of Americans who have entered voluntary helping relationships with Southeast Asian refugees. The research was intended to provide insights into the activities occurring within the relationships, the hosts' perspectives on what happens in the relationships, factors which the hosts see as hindering the sustenance and development of the relationships, and especially the meaning which the relationships have for the hosts. Within the general purposes of description and interpretation, a key intention of the research was to develop grounded theory by which to analyze and explain the experience of Americans who have sustained relationships with Southeast Asian refugees. The overall goal of the research was to contribute to theories of intercultural relationships and to provide insights for those designing refugee resettlement and cultural orientation programs for American hosts of refugees. In the world today all sorts of people relate to others across cultural lines. For some the intercultural contact occurs within the home territory of both parties. For many others the contact comes within a context in which one person plays the role of stranger and the other that of host. Many of these strangers intend to influence people in the host culture. Examples of people with this purpose from a United States context include Peace Corps volunteers, military advisors, business 2 people, religious missionaries and teachers of English in non-English- speaking countries. Although the goal of such programs lies in influencing the hosts, most of the empirical research and theory on intercultural relations focuses on the strangers. Theoretical and practical reasons may account for the concentration on strangers. In terms of sociological theory the concept of the stranger has been firmly fixed in the literature since Simmel's 1908 essay {Deg grgmggf (Simmel, 1950). In his concept of the stranger Simmel was concerned with relationships in social space, not with geography nor with length of stay. Thus, by stranger Simmel was not designating a person who comes today and goes tomorrow. Rather, Simmel spoke of "the potential wanderer,‘ one who 'comes today and stays tomorrow. . . . although he has not moved on, he has not quite overcome the freedom of coming and going.“ Simmel then stated: He is fixed within a particular spatial group, or within a group whose boundaries are similar to spatial boundaries. But his position in this group is determined, essentially, by the fact that he has not belonged to it from the beginning, that he imports qualities into it, which do not and cannot stem from the group itself. (p. 402) Simmel argued that his concept of the stranger presented a unity of nearness and remoteness, of wandering as liberation from every given point in space and fixation at any given point. Thus, the stranger occupies a place in a given social situation, but remains removed from the center of the situation because the stranger has come from somewhere else. Simnel asserted as well that the concept of the stranger revealed that spatial relations constitute the condition and the symbol of human relations. Although various aspects of Simmel's theory can be helpful in understanding hosts, no comparable theory of hosts has been generated. A second reason for the concentration on strangers has to do with the practical matter that people in such roles tend to be easy to identify and, especially in the form of foreign students at American universities, easy to recruit into research projects. Hosts on the other hand tend to be diffused throughout the host society. This diffusion makes it difficult to propose a criterion by which to distinguish them from the rest of the host society. Therefore, given the relative ease of studying strangers, it is not surprising that researchers have focused on them. Further, personal contacts between hosts and strangers may be infrequent. Furnham and Bochner (1982) comment on this problem in their study of social difficulties of foreign students in England: Taken together, the data on the quality of the social relations of foreign students in Britain indicate that in general the sojourners have only very limited contact with host culture members, and the contacts that do become established, tend to be formal and utilitarian rather than personal in nature. The relatively high number of intimate contacts with non-compatriot fellow-foreigners reflects the cosmopolitan environment of the language school where these students spend their days, and the common predicament of being a foreigner in Britain, a condition which seems to transcend language, customs, and religion. (p. 192) The infrequency of face-to-face contacts between cultural hosts and strangers increases the difficulty of studying effects of the strangers on the hosts. As will be seen in the second chapter, this difficulty has not prevented researchers from studying the effects of tourists on their hosts. However, tourism research has looked at gross characteristics of intercultural contacts, not at issues of meaning. A third practical reason for lack of research on hosts, and therefore on the effects of strangers on hosts, in the United States has been attributed to a one-sided outlook on the world. Becker (1969) writes: we in the United States tend to look at inter-cultural communication as a one-way circuit; when we hear this term, we think about the 4 effect of stimuli from this country on the people of other countries. we seldom think of the equally important question of the effect of stimuli from other countries on us. (p. 4) If Becker has observed the situation correctly, then the lack of curiosity on the part of Americans toward people of other nations helps account for the near total neglect of research by Americans on strangers' effects on hosts. The argument made above does not intend to suggest that hosts have been neglected totally. Anthropologists have recognized the value of hosts in fieldwork and the problems of dealing with them (Agar, 1980, pp. 85-86). However, the concentration on strangers with little attention to hosts has had unfortunate consequences in the study of intercultural relations. First, it has prevented development of a comprehensive theory of intercultural interaction because only one side of the interaction has received the vast majority of attention. Second, it has limited the ability of those who plan intercultural contacts for strangers because the success of such contacts depends on something about which we know little, namely, host acceptance. Of this situation Brislin (1981) remarks: One goal of good programs [of intercultural training] is to increase the probability that hosts will offer a cordial welcome to sojourners. In fact, this is not only a goal but a fundamental necessity. Unless people in other cultures are willing to receive sojourners, people cannot participate in cross-cultural contact programs. An extremely important topic for future research, then, is to identify the causes of host acceptance and rejection. (p. 312) Thus, an important area for research in intercultural relations has to do with issues concerning the hosts, rather than the strangers, in host- stranger relationships. Although this research does not discuss the causes of host acceptance and rejection, it does present some hosts' perceptions of the kinds of relationships they share with culturally different strangers, the ways in which they established such relationships and the ways in which they understand their relationships with these people. On a more basic level the research documents hosts' accounts of the development of their relationships with strangers, especially how they became involved with strangers in the first place. Therefore, although no attempt is made to accomplish precisely what Brislin claims is needed, the research does reduce the problem of our knowing very little about intercultural relations from the hosts' perspectives and contributes to the development of a more comprehensive theory of intercultural relations. It also establishes a firmer foundation for the planning of intercultural eXperiences for strangers and for hosts. This research examined the ways in which voluntary hosts understood their relationships to culturally different strangers. Rather than striving for a stranger's outsider point of view, this research attempted to describe how an intercultural relationship looks to a cultural insider or host. As a methodological limitation the research addressed only those hosts who volunteer(ed) for their roles, who received no compensation for their efforts and who acted largely or entirely outside of the confines of a bureaucratically organized institution. Therefore, the subject set excluded participants in employment relationships, intercultural marriages and school settings. RATIONALE Three sets of reasons provide the rationale for the present research. The first concerns the need for more empirical study and new theory in the field of intercultural relations. The second has to do 6 with the reasons for studying the particular set of subjects chosen for the project as well as the importance of this subject set for understanding refugee resettlement. A third, more pragmatic reason will be suggested as well: of the possible subject sets for research on the chosen topic, the set chosen for this research is one of the most accessible to a single researcher in the United States. Rationale for Studying Any Set of Cultural Hosts Social researchers, including those in the fields of educational anthropology and curriculum studies, have examined areas of interface between culturally different groups. By studying these border areas of interaction by people with culturally different standards for appropriate behavior, researchers have discerned subtle differences between cultural patterns and in some cases have been able to account for the means whereby social patterns get reproduced in modern, urban societies. Also, this research has yielded theories explaining various features of intercultural interaction. The literature on intercultural interaction and relations has been reviewed by several authors, each treating the topic from a different angle. Brislin (1981) reviewed the vast material on the psychology of individual differences and the issues which it raises cross-culturally. Gudykunst and Kim (1984) reviewed some of the same literature as well as additional materials from the standpoint of communications issues. An older work by Cbndon and Yousef (1975, 1985) reviewed much of the work on values and anthropological theory in general with a focus on communications issues. Finally, in a brief but important review Bochner (1982) examined studies on the social psychology of intercultural contacts . 7 However, as extensive as the reviews indicate the research and associated theories to be, both research findings and theories fail to satisfy at several points. First, the development of theory has been limited because much of the research has had the pragmatic purpose of contributing immediately to the planning of more effective cultural orientation programs. It has not sought to generate basic knowledge or theory. Second, because much of the research has been conducted within the tradition of a psychology of individual differences, we know little about the broader social and cultural factors involved in intercultural relationships. Third, because the vast majority of research has focused on the stranger in host-stranger relationships, the resulting theories look lopsided: much on the stranger side, little on the host side. In particular, the values, attitudes and especially the understandings of the relationship on the part of both of the participants in intercultural relationships have not been examined. Because the difference between satisfying and unsatisfying, or helpful and unhelpful intercultural contact may be related to issues of values, attitudes and understandings of the relationship, attention to such matters may be very helpful to intercultural theorists and to people who live and work interculturally. Fourth, much of the discussion about intercultural interaction uses an abstract culture category rather than empirical analysis of human beings in actual interaction. This phenomenon has been observed by Condon and Yousef (1975, 1985). In a review of discussions about culture shock they acknowledge that researchers must attend to the people who relate interculturally, not just to abstract culture. They write: The cultural is obviously important in intercultural communication, but it is ppople, not cultures that communicate. (p. 250) Then they remark that the reaction of the people in the host culture to visitors' behavior often goes unnoticed (p. 262). This lack of notice is unfortunate because hosts play crucial roles as bridges between strangers and the host cultural group. They thereby serve as brokers between the groups, explaining the host culture to the strangers and venturing explanations of the stranger culture to their fellow hosts. The current state of descriptive knowledge and theory building in the area of intercultural relationships leaves both those interested in theory and those interested in designing better cultural orientation programs with pieces of what ought to be a more satisfyingly whole picture of such relationships. These limitations on our knowledge and theories reduce our ability to generate more powerful theories of intercultural interaction, to apply such theories as explanations of what happens in specific situations and to improve the design of training programs for those engaging in intercultural relationships. The values of this research were to contribute to theories of intercultural relationships and to provide insights for those designing cultural orientation programs. The research report fulfills these values by describing what happens when altruistically motivated hosts reach out to cultural strangers, especially the meaning which the resulting relationships have for the hosts. In terms of methodology the research used interviews and a few observations to generate a grounded theory of the meaning which intercultural relationships have for host culture adults. Rationale for Studying American Hosts of Refugees A second set of reasons providing the rationale for this research has to do with the nature and importance of both formal and informal sponsors and American hosts in general to the process of refugee resettlement in the United States. Since the mid-19703 when large numbers of refugees entered the United States following the ascent to power of communist regimes in Southeast Asia, American public media have paid much attention to the refugees. Any observer of American news media for the last decade and a half must know that the United States has taken in many refugees. However, as Fein (1987) observes, much of this attention has cited refugees and problems together, reporting on interethnic tensions, racist violence, discrimination, unemployment and dependence. As Fein observes further, because the media have focused on the refugees, there has been little public awareness of the breadth of the sponsorship movement (p. 10). Thus, a major phenomenon in American social history involving millions of Americans has gone little noticed and less studied. In addition to being defined by accessibility and by an initial formal relationship to strangers, sponsors play important roles in refugee resettlement. First, they form a vital link between the refugees themselves and the voluntary agencies under whose auspices refugees enter the United States. The agencies and behind them the United States government have depended on private sponsors to show refugees means of coping with American society and to remain nearby and helpful as problems arise (North, Lewin & wagner, 1982, p. 86). However, sponsors may be a disappearing phenomenon. NOrth, Lewin and wagner reported in 1982 that "although statistical data are not available, it is generally sensed in the refugee-serving community that the number of individual sponsors has been sharply reduced in recent years” (p. 86). They suggested that p§ponsor fatigue resulting from overcommitment as well as past frustrations were inhibiting those who had served as sponsors in the past 10 from doing so in the future. A consequence of this reduction of the sponsor pool has been an increase in the number of sponsorships by refugees' relatives and mutual assistance associations composed of former refugees. Although this situation of former refugees helping present refugees may yield more culturally attuned sponsor-refugee relationships, it holds problems as well. Many refugees have too little in the way of financial resources to offer much help beyond friendship. For the voluntary agencies responsible for resettlement this raises the issue of whether they ought to work with sponsors who themselves receive public assistance. It also raises the issue of the ease with which refugee strangers can be expected to acculturate to dominant American cultural and social patterns if they do not enjoy relationships with people who reach out to them from the host society. Thus, sponsors ought to be studied because they may be vanishing. Because of the crucial roles which they played in resettling the waves of Southeast Asian refugees in the late 19703 and early 19803, they merit attention for reasons of understanding this important segment of American history. Finally, attention to them may also yield information useful in recruiting and equipping other Americans as sponsors and for encouraging Americans to reach out to the refugees already among them. Rationale: Pragmatic Reasons Two pragmatic purposes for this research can be suggested as well. First, the subject set chosen for this project may be more easily accessible than other sets of cultural hosts. Because the refugees form tightly knit, ethnically bounded communities, outsiders interacting with them stand out and can be identified. Second, because of their 11 willingness to reach out to strangers the subjects can serve as models of increased international interest and understanding. By reaching out to strangers the subjects have demonstrated their willingness and desire to open their lives to people who live culturally very different lives. Learning how these people think about themselves, their relationships to strangers and how they came to relate to strangers in the first place may provide insights into how a greater international consciousness can be encouraged among other Americans. Thus, attention to this particular set of hosts can provide knowledge with which to improve actual intercultural relating, in addition to increasing the stock of intercultural knowledge and theory. SUBJECTS The subjects for this research were 41 adult, white, middle socio-economic status Americans who had volunteered to establish relationships with people from the Southeast Asian countries of Laos, Thailand, cambodia and‘Vietnam. Some of them had been involved with people from other countries as well. At least two subjects had helped resettle refugees from Poland and Iran. Of the 40 subjects in this study who submitted background questionnaires (Appendix A), 22 identified themselves as having served as formal sponsors of Southeast Asian refugees. In addition to this fact, information obtained through interviews and observations indicated that nine of the 18 who did not indicate that they had served as sponsors had participated in some way in church committees that did sponsor. §ppnsor as a descriptor provided this research with an initial criterion by which to distinguish the subjects from the surrounding host population. Also, 12 using sppnsor as an initial definer of subjects facilitated recruitment of host subjects. A refugee resettlement agency placed a notice in its newsletter stating that a local researcher wished to interview people who had served as sponsors. The person responsible for refugee resettlement in the agency also contacted 41 former sponsors she thought would make interesting interview subjects, urging them to participate. An important goal of the research was to locate subjects who saw themselves as having a relationship with Southeast Asian strangers rather than just formal contacts. Relationships between the American subjects and Southeast Asians offered a rich and interesting setting for research on the problem set for this research. First, the groups of which these people are a part have had little contact in the past. Although many of the Hmong, Lao and‘Vietnamese people now residing in the United States did interact with Americans during the Vietnam war, their contacts were limited by the brief time that individual American personnel spent in Southeast Asia as well as by the stress of warfare under which the contacts occurred. Second, because almost all of the Southeast Asians entered the United States as refugees, because few if any have hope of returning to their home country and because of their large numbers, this research deals with an area of enormous real and potential intercultural contact. Further, the tendency of these people to cluster means that unless mainstream Americans reach out to them, they may have little friendly contact with members of the host culture. If hosts do not reach out to them, especially to the first generation of immigrants, these people face isolation or at best role-specific contacts chosen by mainstream people. This research yielded knowledge of how to improve intercultural contacts through examining how some Americans who have 13 reached out to refugee strangers and maintained their relationships over time understood their relationship to one or more Southeast Asians. RESEARCH QJESTIONS This research used fieldwork methods, especially open-ended interviews and limited participant observation, to describe the host side of relationships involving voluntary hosts and culturally different strangers. The research explored in particular the nature and meaning of a set of intercultural stranger-host relationships from the hosts' perspectives. The research was guided by one primary research question and by three subsidiary questions. The primary question asked: How do American hosts who relate to Southeast Asian refugees understand their relationship to these culturally different strangers? The three subsidiary questions asked: 1. What sorts of relationships do the hosts see as having been established between themselves and the culturally different refugees? 2. What meanings do these relationships have for the hosts? 3. What factors appear to facilitate and which appear to hinder the development of long-term relationships between hosts and refugees? Answers to each of these questions were sought from statements made by hosts during interviews and then from the researcher's analysis of the hosts' statements and from observations of the hosts interacting with refugees. OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH This research relied primarily on open-ended interviews to gather data. The interviews were audio recorded with the consent of the subjects. The background questionnaire which forms Appendix A and 14 limited-duration observations provided additional information. The resulting data were analyzed for evidence in support of assertions answering the research questions. DEFINITIONS The words stranger and pp§p_identify the key participants in this research. These terms define social/political roles. They tell us nothing about the personalities of the people occupying the roles. In this dissertation stranger will be used as defined by Gudykunst and Kim: Strangers can be conceived of as people who are unknown and unfamiliar and are confronting a group for the first time. (1984, p. 35) Thus, as used here strangers refers to newcomers. The second chapter indicates how the term stranger came to be used in social science literature as well as the alleged lack of clarity about the term in much of the literature. Throughout this dissertation, the term ppgp refers to people in their home culture and society who reach out and establish relationships with strangers. The range of relationships may extend from casual helper upon a stranger's arrival to deep friendship. It excludes marriages and relationships in which the host or stranger receive financial remuneration for participating in the relationship. Thus, the research does not address any situations in which paid social workers, bilingual teacher's aides or other governmental or non-governmental helping professionals relate to strangers. Southeast Asian refggees and Americans identify the nationality of the specific refugee strangers and hosts involved in this research. Both of these terms must be defined. The strangers with whom the hosts interviewed for this research interact were born in Laos, Thailand, 15 Cambodia and Vietnam. During the past decade and a half, these people left their home country and lived initially in refugee camps in Thailand, Hong Kong and/or the Philippines. How can these people be identified geographically? As Muecke (1983, pp. 431-432) argues, two terms often used to identify people from the homelands of the refugees, Indochinese and Southeast Asian, do so inaccurately. Muecke attributes the word Indochinese to the French colonizers as a superficial attempt to unify the disparate groups in the area by emphasizing their heritage of Indic and Chinese influences. Although the French used the term in this way, it may have been coined by an Englishman named John Leyden (gpmppg§_ Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, Indo-). ‘Whatever the origin of the word, Muecke surely has a case that its use makes little sense after the Geneva Agreements of 1954 ended French colonial control over Cambodia, Laos and‘Vietnam. The second term, Southeast Asian, fits these people geographically: however, the refugees in question have fled neither the insular Southeast Asian countries nor the mainland Asian countries of Burma and Malaysia. For lack of a better alternative, the term Southeast Asian will be used in this dissertation for a diverse group of people whose heritage lies in Southeast Asia. A parallel usage would be to refer to Russians and Dutch people as Nbrthern Europeans, an accurate but unhelpful way of lumping together very different peoples. Because the United States government uses the term Indochinese, references to some governmental publications will deviate from the Southeast Asian designation and use Indochinese. The hosts interviewed and observed for this research were all citizens of the United States. They will be designated Americans. Although this term may be used properly by anyone in any of the Americas, 16 it is applied commonly to citizens of the United States of America. America. However, not all citizens of the United States are included in the term American as used below. As used in this dissertation the term refers to white, predominantly middle socio—economic status people. Such usage accords with the way in which at least some Southeast Asian refugees in the United States use the word. Finnan (1981) identified the same usage of the word for California-based refugees early in their stay in the United States (p. 298). Although it will be used infrequently, the word communication in this research is used in the sense proposed by Cbndon and YOusef as 'referring to any behavior that is perceived and interpreted by another, whether or not it is spoken or intended or even within the person's conscious awareness' (1975, 1985, p. 2). Throughout the dissertation, the word relationship refers to connections between American subjects and Southeast Asian refugees. Relationship is used with its primary lexical meaning of the state of being connected by reason of an established or discoverable relation (webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, relationship). The word relation refers to 'an aspect or quality (as resemblance) that connects two or more things or parts as being or belonging or working together or as being of the same kind' (webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, relation). The American subjects of this research were connected to Southeast Asian refugees by reason of their being together in a variety of situations and working together at the process of refugee resettlement. As used in this dissertation, the word relationship does not imply kinship and does not necessarily imply any of the other meanings possible for the word. Thus, the relationships described by 17 this research did not necessarily have the intense and enduring qualities ascribed to the relationship of friendship, although some of the subjects did report friendships with refugees. All of the relationships did involve some sort of help, at least initially, from the American subject to the refugees. Individual Americans have established all sorts of relationships with Asian refugees. Romantic attachments, marriages, teacher-student relationships on all levels of schooling and in adult education, Christian church pastor-parishioner relationships, employer-erloyee relationships, and such bureaucratic encounters as those involving social service case workers, police officers and refugee resettlement professionals have all been established. Some of these types of relationships can also be characterized as helping and many last a long time. However, they have been excluded from this research which limits its attention to helping relationships outside of paid professional or semi-professional contexts. As used in this dissertation voluntpgy helping relationship denotes a relationship in which one party initiates the relationship for the specific purpose of helping the other altruistically. Thus, the motivation for establishing the relationship is not in the first place friendship, financial gain, obedience to a higher authority or fulfilling a professional obligation, but rather the desire to help someone in need. A specific form of help provided by some of the hosts in this study was service as a sppnsor under the United States government's refugee resettlement program. The background questionnaire revealed that 22 out of the 40 subjects had served in this capacity either individually or as part of a sponsoring committee of a local Christian church. The 18 sponsor role has major importance in the refugee resettlement policies of the united States government because no refugee can enter the United States without a local sponsor willing to assume responsibility for providing the essential support necessary for his or her integration into the American economy and society. Sponsors' responsibilities include providing food, clothing and shelter as well as help in finding employment, help with school enrollment, and coverage of basic medical costs until the refugee becomes self-sufficient (Strand & Jones, 1985, p. 40). In the words of a major Protestant Christian refugee resettlement agency, “The basic commitment of sponsorship is to provide the support necessary until the refugees can provide for their own needs“ (Church world Service, 1980, leaf 6). This agency states explicitly that sponsors bear no responsibility for a refugee's civil or criminal activities. Thus, “Sponsorship is not a formal, legal commitment. However, the sponsor undertakes a clear moral commitment to help the refugee to the best of his ability“ (leaf 6). In the following statement the agency uses the language of friendship to describe the sponsor-refugee relationship and casts the importance of sponsorship in ethical categories: The United States stands as a glimmer of hope for a new life to thousands of refugees. The key to this new life is Sponsorship which offers not only a home, but the friendship and emotional support refugees so desperately need. The relationship between a sponsor and refugee is a mutual learning experience. The uniqueness of this relationship gives rise to the understanding that cultural differences aside, people throughout the world share a common bond. The sponsor is a friend, enabler and advocate to assist a refugee family or individual to make a new start in a new land. The major objective in resettlement is to help the refugee become independent and self-sufficient. The sponsor should not assume the role of parent, but rather provide guidance and support to aid in the transition to self-sufficiency and self-respect. (leaf 5) The goal of establishing friendship rather than a parental relationship 19 as the end of sponsorship appears later in the document as well: Let the person [the refugee] grow and develop on their [sic] own terms even though this might at times seem strange or different to you. As a sponsor you must not be a parent but a friend who cares, loves and tries to understand that this person has arrived in the United States from a different culture with different learning experiences. Many sponsors share stories of how much the refugees have taught them about the history and way of life of a part of the world they knew little about in the past. (leaf 7) In a pamphlet inviting people to sponsor refugees, a Roman Catholic refugee resettlement agency also gives friendship as a goal of sponsorship. This pamphlet also states that sponsors should aim at helping a refugee achieve economic self-sufficiency: Sponsorship is the means by which refugees are permitted to enter the U.S. The role of the sponsor is not limited to the offer of a home, but includes the friendship and emotional support a refugee desperately needs. The relationship between a sponsor and a refugee is a mutual learning experience, the uniqueness of which gives rise to the understanding that, cultural differences aside, people throughout the world share a common bond. A sponsor is a “friends,“ an “enabler,“ and an “advocate,“ assisting a refugee family or individual to make a new start in a new land. The major objective in resettlement is to help the refugee become self-sufficient. (Jesuit Refugee Service) Given the stated goal of these agencies that sponsors establish friendships with refugees, this research provided the opportunity to touch on another area of research which has been neglected by social scientists. Although sociologists, psychologists, communications scholars and anthropologists have analyzed different aspects of friendship in specific cultures, as Gudykunst and Kim (1984) observe, “To date . . . there is very little research describing friendships with strangers. Because of the paucity of research on relationships with strangers, it is impossible to systematically discuss how they begin and develOp with time“ (p. 176). Thus, the research literature on intercultural relationships has a lacuna which has been noticed but not 20 filled. The finding of an older study which did examine intercultural friendships raises the question of whether much friendship can be expected between people of intercultural groups. In their study of young people, Klein, Miller and Alexander (1974) concluded that “very few Asian students find real or deep friendships with Americans“ (p. 219). The subjects of this research lived in the Lansing/East Lansing area of central Michigan and in the Toledo area of Ohio. Lansing serves as the capital of Michigan and as the headquarters for a large automotive manufacturing corporation. Irrmediately to the east lies East Lansing, the home of a large state university. Toledo lies approximately ninety miles southeast, or about a two hour drive, from Lansing. It serves as a commercial and business hub for surrounding towns and rural areas. Of the subjects interviewed for this research 34 lived in the Lansing/East Lansing area and seven in the Toledo area. Because one of the Lansing subjects did not complete a background questionnaire, information about the subjects drawn from the questionnaires designates the number of Lansing subjects as 33 for a total of 40 people. Accomplishment of the purposes of the research required development of a grounded theory. Glaser and Strauss (1967) use this term to refer to theory discovered or generated from data systematically obtained from social research rather than by logical deduction from a priori assumptions (pp. 2-3). They assert that a grounded theory is derived from data and then illustrated by characteristic examples of data. The grounded theory generated through this research falls into both the substantive and formal categories posited by Glaser and Strauss. Substantive grounded theory is developed for a substantive, or empirical, area inquiry. In the case of this research, the substantive area is that 21 of relations between host Americans and Southeast Asian refugees. Formal theory is developed for a formal, or conceptual, area of inquiry. The theory generated through this research has to do with identity formation and self-concept in intercultural relations (1967, p. 32). Glaser and Strauss posit that a theory must state conceptual categories and their conceptual properties as well as hypotheses or generalized relations among the categories and their properties. The theory stated in the fourth chapter contains these elements. PROCEDURE - RESEARCH METHODS The research strategy pursued in the dissertation is above all an interpretive one. This term is used in the sense proposed by Erickson (1986) for research which has its central interest “in human meaning in social life and in its elucidation and exposition by the researcher“ (p. 119). This research explored the nature and meaning of social life to ricans who relate to Southeast Asian refugees. The unit of analysis for this research was the self-reported experience of individual hosts. ‘Within the hosts' reports, statements served as the sub-unit of analysis. These statements were obtained by interviewing subjects in an open-ended fashion on audio tape. In planning the research procedure two practical problems confronting anyone wishing to study the subjects of this research had to be overcome. First, because the subjects were strictly volunteers in terms of their participation in the project and in their relationships with refugees, the data-gathering strategy had to be labor intensive for the researcher. It had to require as little of the subjects' time as possible. Second, although it would be useful to examine by participant observation situations of actual contact between the American hosts and 22 the Southeast Asian strangers, such contacts tend to be infrequent and, for several of the subjects, difficult to anticipate. The difficulty of anticipating contacts applied especially to the more intense involvements such as giving comfort to a Southeast Asian refugee family grieving the loss of a loved one. The sporadic, unplanned and unpredictable nature of such contacts makes them difficult for an outsider to observe. How then can the hosts' perspectives on intercultural contact between themselves and the refugee strangers with whom they interact be studied? Open-ended interviews were chosen as the primary strategy because they required minimal time from the subjects, because they could be scheduled and because they could provide talk closer to natural, unprompted conversation than could more structured interviews. The general goal of the interviews was to obtain natural talk from the subjects. Thus, the design and execution of the interviews were intended to get people as deeply as possible into their own experience. Although an outsider perspective had to be developed as well, an insider perspective was crucial to the project's success because the primary research question dealt not with an outsider's view of what intercultural hosts do, but rather with how people in such positions understand their relationship to cultural strangers. A consequence of using open-ended interviews of relatively few subjects was that the research had to sacrifice breadth of coverage. Forty or 41 hosts constitutes a minor fraction of all Americans who have had some contact with strangers. Even within the domain of refugee resettlement the number of subjects available for research was far fewer than the set of all formal and informal sponsors in the Lansing and East Lansing area. However, sacrificing breadth of coverage opened 23 the way for a real strength, namely, depth of investigation and analysis. In looking at adaptation to a new social situation the research describes the range of perspectives of people who are adapting to something different from their encounters with everyday neighbors. By showing the richness and distinctiveness of several cases this research indicates the range of variation of the ascription of meaning among volunteer hosts. From this perspective variation between hosts and even variation within an individual case offer interesting and contrasting material. Thus, any individual subject may have provided several types of information. The richness of these cases comes in large measure from the open-ended nature of the interviews. Although interviews provided the main source of data for the research, a number of opportunities arose to observe the interviewed hosts interacting with refugees in natural settings. Figure 1 displays and classifies these situations: Figure 1. OBSERVED SITUATIONS or ACTUAL HOST-STRANGER CDN‘I‘ACI‘ SITUATIONS OBSERVED Literacy Death of Lao Man Parties Tutorials Tutor Tutor In Home of Funeral Lao New Memorial Day Amy Louise Deceased and wake Year's Private Party Twice Four times Figure 1 indicates the social settings in which contact occurred. It does not indicate the range of actual contact events within each social setting. It does indicate that these were occasions about which an outside researcher with good rapport within both the host and stranger groups would be informed and would be permitted to attend. 24 TECEBLIQUE AND INSTRUMENT The techniques for gathering data included audio taped open-ended interviews with 40 subjects and some family members, limited observations of six literacy tutorials in which subjects served as tutors, and analysis of a few documents related to the subjects. The notes of the interviews and observations were analyzed for evidence which could be extracted to support answers to the research questions. The open-ended interviews served as the primary data-gathering technique. Although these were open-ended, a schedule or protocol (Appendix B) served as a checklist to make sure that subjects spoke to simular topics and issues. Before each interview, the subject signed a consent form (Appendix C). DELIMITATIONS Several factors delimited the scope of this research. These included both design variables and practical considerations. Both of these matters limit the generalizability of the findings. Design variables. The research problem addressed the issue of intercultural relations in general. However, the subject set included only white, middle socio—economic status adult Americans who had extensive ties with Southeast Asian refugees. Further, the Southeast Asian refugees to whom the subjects related may not be typical of other groups of strangers nor of refugees in general. Therefore, the findings of the research apply directly to only one of the numerous types of intercultural relationships. Nonetheless, the theory developed by this research may be useful for conceptualizing other types of intercultural relationships. 25 Peculiarities of the hosts. Several factors peculiar to the set of hosts who served as the subjects limit the generalizability of the findings. The host subjects for this research entered into voluntary, altruistic relationships with refugees. The vast array of romantic, employment and commercial relationships obtaining between hosts and strangers in the United States and throughout the world was not considered. Second, these hosts initiated whatever relationship resulted with the strangers. Thus, this particular set of hosts reversed the situation which obtains in relationships involving such hosts as Peace corps volunteers, military advisors, religious missionaries and teachers of English in non-English-speaking countries. Third, 22 of the subjects entered into the semi-formalized relationship of sponsor-client as part of the refugee resettlement program of the United States government. Although this relationship has few set rules governing it, sponsorship did fit the hosts into a role, however ill defined such roles may have been. This research does not assume or assert that the subjects represent any other Americans in the range or intensity of the contacts with cultural strangers, in the nature and depth of the relationships which they developed with these people nor in the orientations to strangers which this research investigated. In their willingness to reach out to strangers altruistically and in some cases to develOp long standing relationships including friendships, in the intensity of the relationships which many of them developed and simply in the range of activities in which they have engaged with strangers, they probably vary greatly from American norms. However, they may live lives and have orientations toward strangers that are typical of those of other 26 Americans who have reached out altruistically to strangers in the form of Southeast Asian refugees. The work resulting in this dissertation focused on describing carefully a particular set of American hosts of refugees. However, nothing in the research suggests that the subjects were different from other Americans who reached out to refugees. Thus, the findings may be tested with other groups of American hosts who relate to refugees in other settings. The point of this research was not to discover some attribute shared by all or at least most cultural hosts nor by all or most Americans. Rather, the goal of the research was to discover something important about a potentially unique group of cultural hosts, in this case Americans, who took upon themselves the task of orienting refugees to life in their country and who in some cases established long-standing, emotionally involved relationships with strangers. In summary, the subjects of this research constituted a convenient, largely self-selected sample of cultural hosts who have reached out to people different from themselves. They do not represent a random sample of all Americans, of all intercultural hosts nor of all American refugee resettlers. These features of the subject set are the inevitable constraints on any project examining refugee resettlers, given the confidentiality agreements between the refugee resettlement agencies and sponsors. Such agreements prevent the agencies from.granting access to Sponsor rosters to anyone outside of the particular agency. Peculiarities of the refggee strangers. Certain features of the refugee strangers to whom the American hosts related may be peculiar to these particular refugees. Refugees from Southeast Asian nations living in the United States have attracted particular attention in the United 27 States no doubt because of their large numbers, but also because of the type of home country situations from‘which they fled. Zetter (1988) observes that the term refugee presumes the probability of eventual voluntary repatriation. However, in the twentieth century, repatriation has happened only rarely. Rather, “The label [refugee] indicates change in the normal structure and mechanisms of economic, social and cultural life - these are changes that, by their extreme nature often become pathological for refugees and their hosts“ (p. l). The Southeast Asian refugees with whom the subjects of this research interacted fit into groups distinguishable in several ways from other groups of refugees and from other groups of cultural strangers. Three ways in which Southeast Asian refugees can be distinguished from other refugee and stranger groups merit attention here. First, the reasons for and conditions of their departure place Southeast Asian refugees on the border between the categories of voluntppy and involuntary migrants. Even though no one physically forced them to leave their homes, by definition as refugees they did leave out of fear. Therefore, their volunteerism is not of the same sort as that of other voluntary migrants such as international students, Peace corps personnel, mulitary advisors and religious missionaries. Second, with few exceptions these refugees immigrated to the United States to stay permanently. Although some may long to return to their home countries, political realities and the increasingly long duration of their settlement in a third country make repatriation unlikely. Although Southeast Asian refugees remain strangers by Simmel's definition, they are in a different tenure category than international students, Peace Corps volunteers, military advisors and religious 28 missionaries, all of whom, by definition, plan to return home after completion of a particular task. Although refugees who have spent time in a country of first asylum, such as Lao refugees in Thailand, have on occasion been repatriated, the Southeast Asian refugees in the United States will almost certainly never leave in large numbers. By now, many have become United States citizens. More will soon be eligible to do so. Third, Southeast Asian refugees stand out from other strangers because they vastly outnumber the isolated strangers in many other categories. For example, Peace Corps volunteers and religious mussionaries tend to live and work at some distance from colleagues or to live and work in groups much smaller than the communities of refugees in Lansing, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio. This fact of the size of the refugee groups makes them and their related hosts interesting to study. It also provides opportunities to follow up this study with people from the same set of hosts in years to come. Fourth, the violent situations from.which they fled and the physically and emotionally difficult conditions of flight experienced by many Southeast Asian refugees make them different from other large groups of cultural strangers. Commonwealth citizens residing in England and migrant workers in the Middle East provide examples of large sized groups of cultural strangers, but groups which have not experienced the physical and emotional trauma of many Southeast Asian refugees. Practical Considerations Fieldwork research in the ethnographic tradition involving interactive, open-ended interviews presents the researcher with at least two difficult problems. First, as Agar (1986) observes, “An ethnography is first of all a function of the ethnographer, who brings to his or her 29 work the tradition in which he or she participates, including the training received in professional socialization“ (p. 18). Although this research cannot be classified as a full-scale ethnography, it involved the same fieldwork methodology and orientation which would obtain in such a study. Therefore, the research engaged the problem Agar addresses, namely, that the observer attends to statements, events and behaviors which stand out for him or her and that the observer makes sense of the statements heard and events and behaviors observed in terms of his or her tradition. In addition, this research was limited by the researcher's non-research involvement in the lives of the subjects. During the year within which the data was gathered, I worked within the Asian ministry of a Christian church in Lansing to which several of the subjects belonged. The responsibilities of this position included building relational bridges between the American and Southeast Asian members. Several of the subjects participated in two intercultural training workshops organized to help build such bridges. A previous research project dealt with ways in which adult Lao students in an English Bible class understood their relationship to Patrick, the teacher of the class (Bekker 1985a & 1985b). In some sense these activities may look like participant observation with a shift toward the participant end of the scale. However, the researcher's roles with respect to the subjects were those of facilitator of a workshop: paid colleague: and provider of questions, advice and resource materials. These roles with 18 of the subjects differed from those which would have been the case with a randomly chosen group of subjects. Figure 2 distinguishes the nature of the researcher's relationship'with the subjects in terms of those contacted before the study and those contacted only through the study. The subjects are 30 identified by the pseudonyms used throughout the dissertation and listed in Appendix D. Figure 2. RESEARCHER'S PREVIOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH SUBJECTS PREVIOUS CONTACT CONTACT ONLY THROUGH STUDY Dorothy Dan Cindy Norma Kenneth Edward Janice David Deborah Chuck Alvin Henry Karen Mark Barbara Jean Sarah Ann George Karl Mary Bill John Lisa Judy Tammy Ronald walter Sheila Alan Leon James Thomas Sandra Elizabeth Louise Amy Patrick Helen Nancy Eugene Counterbalancing the problems which previous contact may have contributed is the consideration that the previous contact facilitated the rapid identification of subjects and enriched the kinds of interviews which could be held. A fieldworker doing a full-scale ethnography would have had to develop similar rapport in a shorter time within the set role of researcher. In the case of this research, there was a significant amount of time for observations of the setting and the subjects as a participant in their lives before the onset of the project. Thus, the research examined and depended on human factors in intercultural relations. Such work has been urged by Condon and YOusef in their remarks about communication: . . . when looking at interpersonal communication across cultures, there is very often another kind of intervening factor, a human factor that is rarely touched upon in discussions of intercultural communication. (1975/1985, p. 197) This research concentrated on such human factors, particularly the issue of the meaning of intercultural relationships and the sorts of communication which occurs between the parties to the relationship. The need for qualitative research on intercultural and refugee 31 matters has not gone unnoticed. In the domain of refugee research waldron (1988) argues the need for social anthropological research in refugee administration to shed some light on the inner workings and problems of the refugee economy and society. Using three case studies from the Somalia refugee situation of 1981-82, waldron shows how what he terms “the top—down, self enclosed logic of bureaucracy“ of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the world Food Program and various voluntary agencies from 13 nations failed to inform administrators of unmet life-threatening needs from the refugees' perspectives. For example, in the first case administrators failed to realize the severity of a firewood crisis and the extreme burdens which the resulting lack of cooking fuel placed on the over 500,000 refugees in Somalia (pp. 156-58). waldron argues for fieldwork research aimed at determining the needs, problems and complexities of the situation as perceived by the refugees. An identical case can be made for fieldwork research on those to whom refugees relate in the United States or any other country of permanent asylum. SUMMARY This research sought to describe the host side of relationships between voluntary American hosts and Southeast Asian refugees, especially the meaning which the relationships had for the hosts. It sought to contribute to the fields of intercultural relations and refugee resettlement. It represents the sort of study which can be accomplished by a single researcher using fieldwork methods. The findings and conclusions propose problems for further, more extensive investigation, contribute to theories of intercultural interactions, and suggest ways in which intercultural training programs can be enriched. CHAPTER II PRECEDENTS IN THE LITERATURE This chapter reviews literature in seven areas. The first section deals with theories of host-stranger relationships. The second section discusses the state of the art in the study of intercultural relationships. The third section sumarizes research on tourism. The fourth section concerns the study of refugee resettlement, especially the relationships between Southeast Asian refugees and their sponsors in the United States. Studies by Mortenson (1981) and Fein (1987) receive particular attention. The fifth section discusses the literature on refugee resettlement in terms of a rationale for studying the American hosts of Southeast Asian refugees. The sixth section discusses the contrast between United States and Canadian refugee sponsorship patterns. Literature reviewed in the seventh section deals with issues involved in the field work methodology employed for this research. The chapter ends with a summary. THEORIES OF HOST-STRANGER RELATIONSHIPS As stated in chapter one, Simmel's 1908 essay “Der Fremde“ (1908/1950) fixed the concept of the stranger in social science literature. Since then a large body of literature has developed dealing with interactions between hosts and strangers. However, most of this research and writing on host-stranger transactions has focused on strangers rather than hosts. Had Simmel developed a more comprehensive theory of host-stranger relationships and interactions, the literature on 32 33 hosts might be richer. However, Simmel did not neglect hosts entirely and his proposals offer helpful insights for the present research. Simmel's conception of der Fremde Simmel began his discussion of der Fremde by observing that “spatial relations are only the condition, on the one hand, and the symbol, on the other, of human relations“ (p. 402). Considered in this way, the stranger symbolizes the pptential wanderer, presenting a unity of the conceptional opposite characteristics of liberation from every given point in space, or wanderipg, and fixation at a given point. After rejecting a conception of the stranger as “the wanderer who comes today and goes tomorrow,“ Simmel reconceptualized the wanderer as a person who enters a new group and stays. However, because this person has not belonged to the group from the beginning and, thus, “imports qualities into it, which do not and cannot stem from the group itself“ (p. 402), the stranger does not and cannot relinquish entirely the freedom of coming and going. Therefore, no matter how intensely a stranger may wish to stay at and become an organic part of a new home, that person cannot be assimilated into the group in any absolute sense. McLemore (1970) asserts that for Simmel, “a person may be a member of a group in a spgtial sense but still not be a member of the group in a pppigl sense; . . . a person may be ip_the group but not p§_it“ (p. 86). In his consideration of the nature of relationships between hosts and strangers, Simmel worked with four categories. These categories can be placed on a matrix as in Figure 3. 34 Figure 3: CONCEPTUALIZATION OF SIMMEL'S FOUR FACTORS IN STRANGERPHOST RELATIONSHIPS common Individual Nearness Distance Figure 3 depicts the dimensions of nearness and distance in Simmel's matrix, and the values of the dimensions, namely, that which is common as opposed to that which is individual. All human relationships can be understood in terms of all of these characteristics. All relationships combine characteristics of nearness and distance as well as the characteristics of commonality and individuality. In terms of host-stranger relations, Simmel asserted that hosts and strangers share only more general or common qualities. In contrast to this, hosts relate to other hosts in terms of “the commonness of specific differences from merely general features“ (p. 405). Thus, a host and a stranger may share the common occupational designation of carpenter. This characteristic may lead to a reduction of the distance between them. Yet, it cannot approximate the nearness between a host carpenter and his brother the investment banker. In Sinmel's words: Although the commonness functions as their unifying basis, it does not make these particular persons interdependent on one another, because it could as easily connect everyone of them with all kinds of individuals other than the members of this group. This too, evidently, is a way in which a relationship includes both nearness and distance at the same time: to the extent to which the common features are general, they add, to the warmth of the relation founded on them, an element of coolness, a feeling of the contingency of precisely this relation - the connecting forces have lost their specific and centripetal character. In the relation to the stranger, it seems to me, this constellation has an extraordinary and basic preponderance over the individual 35 elements that are exclusive with the particular relationship. The stranger is close to us, insofar as we feel between him and ourselves common features of a national, social, occupational, or generally human, nature. He is far from us, insofar as these common features extend beyond him or us, and connect us only because they connect a great many people. (p. 406) Simmel concluded his discussion by asserting that “strangers are not really conceived as individuals, but as strangers of a particular type: the element of distance is no less general in regard to them than the element of nearness“ (p. 407). were he writing today, Simmel would probably have classified this phenomenon about which he was writing as stereotyping. Hence, for Simmel the stranger lives in a constant paradox between freedom to wander and fixation at a given point. Even if a stranger remains in the same location for a long period of time, by definition, he or she retains the capacity to leave. It is this paradox which defines the stranger's social role. Reactions to Simmel Since Simmel introduced the concept of the stranger, much research and theorizing has developed from or in opposition to this conception. The volume of work related to the concept has led Inkeles to conclude that “there is a special and well-developed sociology of the stranger“ (1964, p. 12). Based on more recent reviews of the literature by Levine (1979) and McLemore (1970), Gudykunst (1983) makes the contrary assertion that “the literature on strangers is confounded by several different conceptualizations of the term“ (p. 402) as well as “by the attention the stranger concept receives in the study of marginality and the lack of differentiation between work on the stranger and research on social distance“ (p. 403). In discussing the different conceptualizations of the term stranger, 36 Gudykunst begins by analyzing the literature dealing with strangers in terms of 3 categories each identified with its initial proponent. These categories appear in Figure 4. Figure 4: CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF THE STRANGER Simmel wood Schuetz (1908) (1934) (1944) A person living One who comes into Adult desiring per- paradoxically be- face-to-face con- manent acceptance or tween freedom to tact with a group at least tolerance wander and fixation for the first time by the host group at a given point ‘WOod (1934) states her understanding of the stranger in terms broader than those of Simmel. She describes the stranger as a newcomer, as someone who comes into face-to-face contact with a group for the first time. She then states: For us the stranger may be, as with Simmel, a potential wanderer, but he may also be a wanderer who comes permanently. The condition of being a stranger is not, for the present study, dependent upon the future duration of the contact, but it is determined by the fact that it is the first face-to-face meeting of individuals who have not known one another before. (pp. 43-44) Finally, Schuetz (1944) presents a third conceptualization of the stranger as a marginal person. He defines stranger in the following termS: . . . an adult individual of our times and civilization who tries to be permanently accepted or at least tolerated by the group which he approaches. The outstanding example for the social situation under scrutiny is that of the immigrant. . . . But by no means is their validity restricted to this special case. The applicant for membership in a closed club, the prospective bridegroom who wants to be admitted to the girl's family, the farmer's son who enters college, the city-dweller who settles in a rural environment, the “selectee' who joins the Army, the family of the war worker who moves into a boom town - all are strangers according to the definition just given. (p. 499) Gudykunst asserts that all of these conceptualizations of the stranger 37 differ from the common understanding which views the role of stranger “as a function of the degree of unfamiliarity between two or more people“ (p. 403). This understanding can be seen in a standard dictionary definition of stranger (Randothouse Dictionary, 1968): 1. an individual with whom one has had no personal acquaintance 2. a newcomer in a place or locality 3. a person who is unacquainted with or unaccustomed to something. However, this definition adds a fourth meaning: 4. a person who is not a member of a family, group, community, or the like, as a guest or outsider. In discussing synonyms for the term stranger this dictionary states that “STRANGER, ALIEN, FOREIGNER all refer to someone regarded as outside of or distinct from a particular group. STRANGER may apply to one who does not belong to some social, professional, national, or other group, or may apply to a person with whom one is not acquainted.“ The set of meanings given in the dictionary indicate that Gudykunst has overstated the case because wood's definition of stranger is very close to the first three meanings listed above. McLemore's Analysis of the Literature on the Concept of the Stranger In his review of literature on the concept of the stranger published two decades ago, McLemore (1970) asserts that there is no unified body of literature on strangers: rather, two research traditions emerged from Simmel's essay. The first looked at the stranger as a new person who enters a group. McLemore designates research in this line as studies of newcomers. In this category he cites studies of preliterate peoples which claim that such groups tend to define newcomers as enemies, as tribal brothers, as gods in disguise or as a combination of these three (p. 87). The second research tradition looked at the stranger in a 38 way that was truer to Simnel's original intention, as “one who having come from some other place assumes, or is assigned, a particular position in the social structure“ (pp. 88-89). McLemore designates the stranger understood in this way as the marginal man. Such a person occupies a particular social position within a group “which involves a certain degree of inclusion and of exclusion, of being _i_p the group but not 9}; it“ (p. 92). By McLemore's count, the bulk of research on strangers has focused on marginal men. McLemore argues that the failure to distinguish between the two ideas plus the overemphasis on marginality has resulted in little attention being given to strangers and to their impact on host social organization. Gudykunst (1983) agrees with McLemore that too much attention has been given to the concept of the stranger in the study of marginality. He argues further that social scientists (e.g., Levine, 1979) have not distinguished sufficiently between work on strangers and research on social distance. He concludes, “There is not a well-developed area of the sociology of the stranger as Inkeles [1964] would have us believe“ (p. 403). In the context of this research the strangers to whom the host subjects related fit into marginal categories as well as being newcomers to their communities. Even if they have lived in the United States for several years, they are people who have not entered into political or any other power situations in American society. They are people who may be on their way up economically. Political power may lie within the grasp of the next generation. At the present time, they appear to be both newcomers and marginal people. Both characteristics happen to be operative in the particular set of strangers with whom the subjects of 39 this research established relationships- In light of McLemore's and Gudykunst's analyses of the lack of conceptual clarity in the research and general literature in the stranger domain, this research must not fall into the same trap nor introduce simular confusion into future discussions of ppppp and their relations with strangers. In this research the strangers with whom the host subjects established relationships will be understood as newcomer refugees. However, given the nature of refugee status, these people are marginal to the host society. Missing from all of these discussions is an empirical study of how hosts actually do understand their relationships to strangers. The present research addressed this area by documenting the conditions under which host-stranger relationships developed and by inquiring into the host's understandings of the sorts of relationships with strangers in which they see themselves involved as well as the meaning which these relationships have for them. RESEARCH ON INTERCULTURAL RELATIONS The literature on intercultural relations has been classified in various ways. Klineberg (1982) reviewed four issues in the literature on inter-group contacts: 1) the issue of inborn or genetic psychological differences between ethnic groups; 2) the role of stereotypes regarding ethnic groups and the possibility of replacing them by a more adequate understanding of cultural characteristics: 3) conflict associated with contact and the question of its inevitability: and 40 4) the consequences of contact between ethnic groups, and the problem of the potential contribution of such contact to improvement of inter-group relations. (p. 45) By this classification, the present research fits into studies of stereotypes and in particular into the consequences of contact between ethnic groups. Bochner (1982, pp. 15-16) provides a more complete review by using four categories to classify research on intercultural interaction. The first contains studies dealing with attitudes of foreign students attending universities in western countries. The second has to do with studies of migrants and migration. The third category contains studies of relations between majority and minority groups. These studies focus on racism. The fourth set of studies concerns attempts to review and integrate the contact literature. In light of his review of the literature Bochner asserts that “there is a large literature on the psychological effects of cross-cultural contact, but it suffers from being mostly a-theoretical“ (p. 15). In a report of two exploratory studies Gudykunst (1985) described intercultural friendships and compared them with intracultural relationships. International students studying in the United States served as the subjects for both studies. Based on his modified administration of McCroskey, Richmond and Daly's measure of perceived similarity (1975) and a modification of Taylor and Altman's measure of interpersonal penetration (1966), Gudykunst concluded that somewhat parallel patterns obtain in close intracultural and intercultural relationships when perceived similarity and social penetration are cross-sectionally examined (1985, p. 281). He suggested further that his subjects did not regard similarity in cultural background as a necessary 41 prerequisite for friendship preference. “Rather, perceived similarity exerts an influence on intracultural, as well as intercultural attraction. This perceived similarity is reinforced as the relationship develops over time“ (p. 281). TOURISM RESEARCH The specific matter of host roles and perceptions has been dealt with to some extent in intercultural relations literature; however, such treatments have been oblique. The field of tourism research offers a literature domain containing numerous studies of strangers' interactions with hosts. Some of these studies deal with the relationships resulting from such interactions. Studies on the effects of tourism on the people visited can be considered research on hosts. Pearce's analysis (1982) of much of this material validates empirically various ways of construing changes in hosts' attitudes through their contact with outsiders. Pearce discusses numerous economic, social and physical effects of tourist contacts. A brief review of his analysis will help to document a fuller set of studies on host-stranger interactions as well as provide categories which may be useful in comparative studies of other types of host-stranger relationships. However, it will be claimed below that this domain of literature treats an important but still unusual type of stranger-host contact, and one which deals neither with the newcomer nor the marginal person categories in the research tradition rooted in Simmel's conception of der Fremde. Pearce (1982) classifies tourist effects into the two categories of direct effects as opposed to indirect ones. Direct effects have to do with person-to-person contact between tourists and local people. Indirect effects involve the effects of tourist activity and the physical 42 conditions which make such activity pOssible. For example, construction of large tourist hotels often creates more job opportunities for women than for men. This disparity may produce sex role conflicts where none or few existed previously. Pearce then discusses direct and indirect effects in turn, beginning with contacts between presumably wealthy tourists and local people of Third world and poor communities on the one hand, and on technologically advanced communities on the other. Direct Effects of Tourism Contacts between wealthy Tourists and Poor People and Poor Communities Pearce asserts that direct contact between wealthy tourists and poor local people often generates discord, exploitation and social problems (1982, p. 201). After acknowledging several studies which found positive effects on both the economic and social aspects of local communities, Pearce proceeds to assert that “if a few local people profit, the majority of Third world hosts appear to lose“ (p. 201). In terms of economic effects on the hosts, Pearce cites a study of Tonga in which stops by large cruise ships are claimed to have led to crowded conditions in small towns, the development of begging by children, prostitution and homosexuality and a rise in drunkenness and crime. He reports similar patterns in Mexican border towns and in the Seychelles islands (p. 201), all of which he attributed to the effects of tourists. Pearce then discusses the alleged direct social and psychological influences of tourist contacts on hosts. Prominent among these influences are a loss of privacy as well as feelings of conspicuousness and confused embarrassment from tourists' observations. In several instances the local tourist industry urges tourists to observe local people in their living culture. Reports from Alaska indicate that local 43 fishermen and hunters feel inundated by such observations and tire of answering endless questions about their procedures (p. 201). A study in the Basque town of Fuenterrabia found that as the number of tourists increased at the Alarde, an annual ritual procession commemorating a seventeenth-century victory by the town's citizens over the French, the number of local people declined. Confusion and discontent followed because the local people had lost the essential ritual meaning of the festival. Pearce reports that a second direct social and psychological effect has to do with host accommodation to strangers' perceptions of the world and of the hosts' roles in it. A study of the effects of tourist strangers on urban Tahitian hosts gives an example of this phenomenon. Petit-Skinner (1977) claims that Tahitians in cities frequented by tourists have come to see themselves in some of the ways that the tourists see them. For example, she asserts that in courting and married Tahitian couples the male partner tends to fall into subservient roles rather than the dominant ones typical of this ethnic group. Petit-Skinner attributes this unexpected behavior to the impact of tourists and the incorporation of tourist perceptions in urban Tahitians' views of themselves. It appears that part of the motivation of tourists in visiting Tahiti is to see the beautiful women who live there. If in no other way, many tourists get to know at least one of these women because the government employs women as tourist guides. Petit-Skinner claims that the attention lavished on the attractive Tahitian women by tourists leads to psychological change in which Tahitian suitors and husbands feel subservient to their women to whom tourists are devoting so much attention. 44 The effects mentioned above are presented as harmful to the native populations. A third effect of tourism appears to be more beneficial, Pearce asserts, especially when the number of tourists visiting an area remains small. He notes that young people on the Mediterranean island of Gozo near Malta welcome tourist contact. They regard such contacts as a way in which they can expand their horizons and they feel flattered that the tourists have chosen to visit their island rather than the larger, more industrialized and more famous Malta (1982, p. 202). However, a fourth set of studies returns to the theme of negative effects. Pearce cites numerous studies which indicate that as the number of tourists increases and the easy-going, rewarding tourist-host contacts diminish, hosts develop unpleasant stereotypes of all tourists from a given country. For example, Catalans regard all French as pushy and ill mannered, all Germans as stingy, English people as arrogant, and Italians as untrustworthy (p. 203). Indirect Effects of Tourism Contacts between Wealthy Tourists and Poor People and Poor communities Turning to studies on the effects of indirect contact of tourists on isolated and poor communities, Pearce discusses the major claim by those promoting tourism, namely, that tourism can revitalize and keep alive ethnic arts and traditions. This position asserts that tourists provide a market for local craftsmen for whose products local demand no longer exists. Pearce introduces McKean's (1978) term cultural involution to denote the increased elaboration of established forms and practices for the benefits of strangers. Thus, ethnic art can be a source of enhancing local identity, personal self-esteem and psychological satisfaction, all financed by tourists' imported money. Pearce also discusses the argument that, although in some cases tourists 45 become patrons of local, dying arts, they frequently encourage a junk market of inexpensive art forms. Lambert (1966) designates this phenomenon as the coco—colonization of the world. More serious consequences for the host society occur when local people secularize formerly restricted, sacred ceremonies for public performance and market traditionally taboo objects for purchase by tourists (1982, p. 204). Pearce notes three additional effects of tourists on local people: changes in language use, impacts on the environment and alterations to employment patterns. White's (1974) study found that a decline in hosts' competence in Romansch, the native language in eastern Switzerland, coincided with the growth of tourism. Pearce does not cite a discrepant case offered by Labov (1963) who found that the dialect of Martha's Vineyard inhabitants broadened across a generation. As the number of summer tourists to the island of Martha's Vineyard increased, the hosts' dialect became increasingly different from the speech style of the strangers. Pearce also states that tourists can change the local environment for the worse. This negative change can come about either directly or through the infrastructure constructed to meet their needs by damaging recreational settings, by removing local objects as souvenirs and by overtaxing the ability of the local environment to handle the increased population density which they cause. Finally Pearce cites studies (pp. 204-205) which found that tourism frequently alters the job structure, creating menial and underpaid jobs which may contribute to the sex role changes found by Petit-Skinner in the study mentioned previously. Pearce further documents two concepts offered as explanations for the growth of host resentment against tourists. First, in the cases 46 Pearce considers, most of the tourists have been wealthier than their hosts. Second, the wealthy tourists form a reference group by which the local hosts develop their perceptions of the tourists' home cultures. In cases in which the tourists' culture is regarded as desirable, such perceptions can lead to alterations in local lifestyles in the direction of that of the tourists. For example, the proliferation of fast food chain restaurants throughout the world can be attributed in part to the influence of American tourists as well as to the ubiquity of American advertising and mass entertainment. Direct Effects of Tourism Contacts of wealthy Tourists on TechnologicallygAdvanced Communities In addition to his analysis of the effects of wealthy tourists on isolated and poor host communities, Pearce discusses direct and indirect effects of tourist strangers on technologically advanced conmunities. Among such advanced societies Pearce reports that the negative impacts of tourist contacts on host societies appear to be fewer, although still discernable. From studies done in London and in East coast communities in the United States, Pearce claims an increase in host appreciation of the expanded municipal commercial opportunities and, occasionally, long-term friendships afforded them by contact with tourists. However, local residents also are reported to resent the added litter, traffic congestion, inflation and noise occasioned by the presence of tourists. A special case has to do with the impact of tourist girls fromflwestern and Northern Europe on Arab males in Israel. It appears that the willingness of this particular set of tourists to develop friendships and in some cases romances with this particular set of hosts enhances the Arab hosts' self-esteem (p. 206). 47 Indirect Effects of Tourism Contacts of Wealthy Tourists on Technologically Advanced Communities Pearce cites studies claiming three effects of indirect contact of tourists on technologically advanced societies. First, in terms of economic impact tourists help finance theaters, restaurants, sports facilities, art galleries, museums, zoos and the like. These new structures appear to have positive and beneficial results for the host society. However, the introduction of large tourist hotels can influence the physical environment negatively. These large structures change traditional Skylines and increase the number of people dumping waste into the local environment. Finally, although Pearce found few studies of indirect social-psychological effects of tourists on technologically advanced societies, he does mention that tourist bureaus in restrictive countries have assumptions about such effects. Careful monitoring of tourists in the Soviet Union and the enormous control over tourists' activities exercised traditionally by Intourist, the official Soviet travel organization, indicates fear that tourists may serve as agents of cultural change and/or that they may come to have mistaken views of the host society if left on their own (p. 207). Summary of Discussion on Tourism Research Tourism studies offer important insights toward understanding host reactions to outsiders. However, tourists represent a special set of outsiders. Pearce defines a tourist as “any person outside of the home area and travelling for leisure“ (1982, p. 200). Such people tend to be affluent, often far more affluent than their hosts. More importantly, tourists are precisely the people who “come today and go tomorrow,“ the very category of wanderer which Simmel excluded from his definition of the stranger. Therefore, although the categories of host 48 response drawn from tourism research may be helpful in constructing theories of host responses in general, the tourism literature itself falls outside the scope of this research. This research is concerned with host relationships with strangers who, although they are newcomers and may be economically and socially marginal to the host society, intend to reside permanently within territory dominated by the hosts' society. RESEARCH ON REFUGEE RESETTLEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES In addition to the categories discussed above, this research fits into the domain of research on refugees and their resettlement. Between 1975 and 1984 approximately 711,000 refugees entered the United States from the Southeast Asian countries of Laos, Cambodia and ‘Vietnam (Office of Refugee Resettlement, 1985, p. 78). During the period of this research, the United States admitted refugees from other countries as well: however, because only two of the Americans interviewed for this research had developed relationships with such people, they were not considered. A great deal of research and writing has been directed to refugee groups. In terms of materials published in the United States, Hmong people from Laos have received particular attention. Two recent collections (Downing & Olney, 1982; and Hendricks, Downing, & Deinard, 1986) contain papers dealing with Hmong culture and change, Hmong adaptation to a new society, issues of language and literacy, and health care issues. According to Stein (1981, pp. 324-325), research on the refugee adjustment process has focused on the refugees themselves and on the programs of formal resettlement. Far less attention has been directed to the Americans who deal with refugee people. The book working with 49 Refugees (Rose, 1986) treats issues of resettlement: but, it focuses on the refugees who do the resettling, not on the Americans who sponsor them or come into contact with them in other ways. Why not look at the effects which the adjusting refugees have had on their sponsoring hosts? What has been the experience of the sponsors? What have they done? What has happened to them? Ashmun's (1983) selective, annotated bibliography lists 47 titles under the heading Sponsors/sponsorship. However, most of these titles refer to guidebooks for sponsors or to government reports. The literature appears to contain little by way of disciplined, thorough studies. Some of the refugee literature is directed at influencing public policy in a broad way. For example, a report by the United States Department of Health, Education and'welfare's Interagency Task Force for Indochina Refugees (1975) suggests that a distinct advantage lies in group rather than individual sponsorship. The report claims that group sponsorship spreads the costs over a larger number of people, thereby easing the financial costs for individuals, and that it allows for extended financial maintenance while the refugees learn English and until they find jobs. The early date of the report indicates that the claim was made before the department had any real experience with Southeast Asian refugees. Tran Tuong (1976) provides a general review of the situation of the first wave of Vietnamese refugees following their first year in the United States. He argues that the trauma of relocation was exacerbated by U.S. resettlement policies. In particular he claims that the refugees were victims of three processes. The first was an enforced diaspora that robbed them of needed ethnic unity. Rather than resettle refugees in 50 groups, government policy called for their dispersal throughout the country. Second, federal authorities emphasized that refugees ought not to maintain contact with relatives in Vietnam. Third, the refugees were victims of a sponsorship system that was culturally insensitive. He concludes by asserting that despite these difficulties most refugees were adjusting well and would turn temporary misfortune into opportunity. More specific studies have been done as well. For example, Meinhardt, Tom, Tse and Yu (1984) examuned the psychological and in some cases physical problems of Asian refugees in Santa Clara county, California. The findings of this study, which appear below as Figure 5, indicate levels of need for mental health services far higher than those of the general population. Figure 5: SOUTHEAST ASIAN REFUGEES' NEEDS FOR MENTAL HEADTH SERVICES LCM MODERATE HIGH SURVEY GROUPS NEED NEED NEED General Population 18.2% 11.8% 3.0% cambodian 20.6% 34.4% 17.5% ‘Vietnamese 15.1% 16.3% 6.0% Chinese Refugees 11.7% 15.0% 4.2% Although the issues of general health and its assessment are complicated, the same research team made similar conclusions as to the need by Southeast Asian refugees for general health care services (Meinhardt, Tom, Tse & Yu, 1984, pp. 30-44). These high levels of need for psychological and medical services may have contributed to the establishment of relationships with American hosts based largely on the fulfillment of these needs. If such has been the case, then the relationships established by similar sets of refugees and hosts merit careful study. 51 Freeman (1989) offers oral history accounts of the lives of Vietnamese refugees who have been resettled in the United States. These accounts report and reflect on the refugees' early years in Vietnam, the ‘Vietnam‘war, events surrounding and following the victory of the Viet cong and NOrth Vietnamese forces over the Republic of Vietnam in 1975, escape from Vietnam and life in refugee camps, and adjustment and new life in the United States. Five of the accounts relate explicit encounters between various refugees and Americans as well as refugees' reflections about the Uhited States and Americans (1989, pp. 357-366, 370, 377, 380, 384-386, 412-413, 416). In terms of what they relate about interactions between refugees and Americans, the oral histories recorded by Freeman range from the heart warming to the awful. One speaker tells of an individual sponsor's care and concern for an elderly female refugee and her husband. The speaker compared her American contacts positively over against her fellow ‘Vietnamese. When we visited our sponsor, she always offered us some food, like watermelon. Other church members would give us leftover cookies and other food. My sponsor bought us a gas lawn mower, and this enabled my youngest son to cut grass to earn money while attending school. we remained in that house for two years. My sponsor's sister-in-law also hired my son to work in her large garden. Nothing unusual happened during those two years. we met lots of Americans, mostly church members, who would visit us every Sunday. They included a doctor, lawyers, teachers, plantation owners, and others. They offered us a lot of stuff. The Americans are much nicer than the Vietnamese. No Vietnamese would have fed us like that, treating us just like sisters and brothers. ‘We are strange to them, but they helped us. That's very nice: that's precious. Even so, after one year, we decided to leave. The reason was that our daughters and sons were leaving to work in another state. They told us to follow them so that we could all be together and they could take care of us. They said is was not right to let the church pe0ple help us all the time. Also, the weather was warmer in their new location: there was no snow. (1989, p. 370) 52 Freeman also reports a knife attack on a young Vietnamese man by four Mexican-American boys in which the young man was stabbed in the head (p. 416). Neither of these accounts nor the others in the book speak much of the nature and quality of the relationships between the refugees and Americans beyond the elderly woman's statement, quoted above, that her American sponsor and members of the sponsor's church treated her and her husband “just like sisters and brothers.“ This statement offers an interesting insight into this refugee's perception of the way in which she and her husband were treated by some Americans. It says little about the nature of the relationship which obtained between her and the ricans. It also says nothing about the Americans' view or views of the interaction. Sweeney (1980) provides an example of a study of the assimilation of a particular group of refugees, the Vietnamese, in a specific location, Denver. An example of his findings is the assertion that the ‘Vietnamese in Denver were surprised that a major resettlement effort made with respect to their group was headed by a woman. Their surprise was heightened because the effort was operated by the Roman Catholic Church. In their experience, this church has been dominated by male priests with women playing only supporting roles. Tillema (1981) informally reviewed the experience of a Christian congregation in‘Wisconsin's experience in sponsoring a five-member Hmong family. The family came to‘Wisconsin after Spending five years in a refugee camp. Tillema describes initial health problems, cultural conflicts over medical practices, problems in dealing with social service agencies, congregational resources and educational issues. His reconmendations involve the utility of explicit service plans and the 53 need to coordinate a wide variety of public and private resources. However, Tillema offers little by way of report or reflection on the interaction between sponsors and refugees. He does give vignettes of sponsor-refugee interaction. For example, he discusses a dilemma which the sponsoring group faced when one of the refugees became ill and was hospitalized. The dilemma arose when the refugee's condition began to improve. As Lia's health improved, we faced a dilemma. 'Was it our responsibility as a sponsor to insist on the medical care that would minimize physiological risks to life and health? Or, now that Lia was out of immediate danger, was it our responsibility to cushion the shock of entry into our culture by helping the Daos take Lia out of the hospital? (1981, p. 37) Tillema also relates the surprise experienced by himself and other sponsors when they had to deal for the first time in their lives with the government social service agencies which provide what is popularly called welfare. Never before had these middle socio-economic status people been required to complete the forms and deal with the case workers who make up the public welfare system in the United States. Studies by Mortenson (1981), Meredith and Cramer (1981) and Fein (1987) offer far more by way of information and theory toward structuring this research. Each will be examined in turn. Meredith and Cramer surveyed 80 sponsors of Southeast Asian refugees in Nebraska, as well as some refugees themselves, to explore their sponsorship experiences. They identified problem areas for sponsors and refugees as acculturation, emotional adjustments, communication, health, housing, transportation, employment, and legal, financial and consumer-related issues. This list provided the basic set of tasks used in constructing the background questionnaire (Appendix A). Their study 54 includes information on the amount of time sponsors spent helping their families and discusses the satisfactions and dissatisfactions of sponsors. Three of Meredith and Cramer's numerous findings are relevant to this research. First, they found that most of the sponsors viewed the experience positively: however, a larger percentage of sponsors in rural areas did so (56%) than those in urban areas (31%). The authors attributed this to the higher frequency of personal contacts possible in small towns. Urban sponsors tended to have more task-specific interactions with the refugees, rather than the diffuse, frequent ones of the rural residents. Second, the greatest disappointment for sponsors came when the refugees they sponsored moved away. This secondary migration phenomenon occurred throughout the United States and has led to major concentrations of Southeast Asians in places such as Orange county, California. An additional source of disappointment had nothing to do with the refugees themselves but rather with the Sponsors' fellow Americans. Sponsors reported that they found people in the sponsorship groups eager to help at first but to be decreasingly reliable as time passed. They also reported disappointment finding unsuspected racial prejudice in their Christian churches, at the insistence of other Americans that the Southeast Asians adopt American customs, and at the refusal of some Americans to recognize that the refugees had fought on the side of the United States in the‘Vietnam war. They also complained of a lack of support from social service agencies (p. 26). Some sponsors (also reported disappointment in themselves. Some encountered a task more H< Huox cc< cmuox wwuowo can comma couoowo meuoz ouocom mucoz mucmm mused oe>mc cancer sumnmuoam consume mess scumbag snuouoo muocuo_3ocx ucmew>ao>cH m couocu N nouocu H couscu a cousgu an: .mcflmcmq womsmmm am mcomcmq mcflmcmq magnum; ca wamowm c“ muwcuo couceoao04. mo muwoew: mo muwoemz mo muwoewz mo mocmfium dmmc.oszzca mmadmmw HEB zH UZH>HA maomhmom maomhmsm 44¢ maombmom m0 mmoomw .m museum 85 Not only did the subjects form groups in terms of church membership, they also participated in common activities. The church groups indicated in Figure 9 constituted religious and social groups. The subjects also met together and telephoned one another in connection with the relationships with the refugees. They formed a loose network operating without formal direction and without scheduled contact. The groups gathered for specific occasions such as parties and funerals. The nature of this group became clear soon after the death of Mr. New, a Lao person in Lansing. Mr. New died in his sleep at his apartment during a June afternoon in 1986 while his children played in the room outside the bedroom and his wife worked at a nearby hotel. On the night of Mr. New's death, the apartment was full of people, mostly Lao, but also a Lao woman and her Hmong husband as well as seven Americans. These included Patrick, David and his wife, Dorothy, Karl and his wife, Karen, as well as another man. Karl, Karen and the unidentified man adhere to the Baha'i religion as did Mr. New and his family. The group was arranged around the room, most people sitting on the floor. The Americans spent most of the evening talking among themselves, although Patrick did spend some time talking with various Lao people. The fact that these Americans had heard about the death, knew that it was appropriate for them to be there and did come indicated that they were connected with the Lao group. Such occasions enabled them to make connections with one another as well (Journal note #4, June 9, 1986). The names of the subjects present for the events surrounding the Lao man's death and burial appear in Figure 10. 86 Figure 10. OBSERVATIONS OF SUBJECTS TOGETHER Death of Mr. New: Cemetery In the New Home the and at the News' Home night of the day that Mr. New died: 6-9-86 Patrick Karen Patrick Karen Pastor of Lansing Church 1 Dorothy Karl 5 Americans Friends of‘Widow David Karl's New from other cities Researcher friend Researcher Lao New Year's Party Patrick Amy Social Services Joan Alan worker and spouse John Louise Researcher Dorothy At least 2 unidenti- David fied Americans At least two of the subjects saw each other socially beyond church related activities and friendships. During her interview, Helen volunteered that she had spent the Fourth of July holiday which had just passed at the summer home of Patrick and his wife. This relationship had nothing to do with refugees but was based on the professional association of her late husband with Patrick. The loose network of host resettlers facilitated the discovery of appropriate subjects for interviews. At one time or another Patrick mentioned most of the Lansing subjects and he provided direct information about Norma, Alvin and Ann. He also gave information about the refugee resettling activities of Lansing Church Number Three. LOCATING SUBJECTS Because the subjects never gathered in an institutional context, locating them required finding a network within which to obtain names and 87 addresses. The master list of potential subjects was gathered from three sources. First, over the previous year the researcher had conducted two intercultural training workshops attended by Americans involved in refugee resettlement. The participant list served as an initial source of names. In particular the subjects in Toledo were contacted through Leon. Second, Patrick suggested contacting Lansing Church Three. A call to the pastor of this church yielded the name of George who had served as the chairman of a committee involved with refugee resettlement. George provided the names and addresses of 16 people who had been involved in refugee resettlement through Lansing Church Three. This group included subjects Kenneth, Henry, Tawny, Thomas, Edward, Mary and Mark. Of an additional nine names provided by George, two had had extensive contact with Asians in Asia but very little contact with Southeast Asian refugees in the United States. The remaining seven either could not be contacted by telephone or could not schedule an interview within the time constraints of this research. The Director of Refugee Services for the local Catholic Social Services agency served as a third source of potential subjects. Because the subjects recruited through her efforts came from outside of the network which produced all of the other subjects, this agency's situation and the means whereby subjects were secured through it merit separate attention. The Director of Refugee Services of the local catholic Social Services agency provided help in locating eight subjects. The agency with which she served had placed 1,501 refugees in 10 counties in the Lansing, Michigan, area from 1979 through 1986. One thousand two hundred ninety-six of these people were from Southeast Asia. The refugees were 88 settled through the sponsorship of 216 people, 162 of whom sponsored Southeast Asians. Additional refugees were resettled for the period 1975 to 1979 by an earlier resettlement office. However, the office kept no numerical record of its activities. Therefore, it is not possible to determine the total number of refugees resettled and sponsors for the 1975-1978 period (P. Hepp, personal communication, August 3, 1989). Because Refugee Services had promised the sponsors anonymity, the director could not give direct access to Sponsors' names and addresses. This promise presented a double complication because the subjects of this research also had been promised anonymity. Therefore, their names could not be divulged to indicate whether the previous contacts had given access to the same people who could be reached through the sponsor group. The impasse was broken when the director permitted the placement of a notice in the agency's newsletter. The director also authorized a person in the agency to send a letter to 41 individual people or married couples who had sponsored Southeast Asian refugees through the agency (J 17, 6-27-86). This letter produced eight contacts. Of these, two people married to each other (Ann and Alvin) were already on the master list, but had not been contacted. One subject who had been interviewed already (Sarah) called to ask if the letter which she received from Catholic Social Services referred to the project for which she already had been interviewed. It is possible that others previously interviewed also received the letter and assumed that they had already participated in the research. One person called after the end of the interviewing phase of this research. Apparently she had been away on vacation, and thus had not read the letter from Catholic Social Services at the time of its arrival. Because I was in the process of moving out of the state in a few days, it was not possible to interview her. 89 Thus, the conversation with the Director of Refugee Services of Catholic Social Services led to interviews with eight peOple, a confirmation of an interview with another person and one contact for which an interview could not be scheduled. The sources of subjects appear graphically in Figure 11. Figure 11. RECRUITMENT OF SUBJECTS Through catholic Social Through Previous Through Through Services Contacts Patrick George 1. Ann 11. Dorothy 24. Karen 33. Norma 35. Kenneth 2. Alvin 12. David 25. Karl 36. Henry 3. Helen 13. Patrick Lansing 37. Tammy 4. Elizabeth 14. Louise Through Church 3 38. Thomas 5. Eugene 15. Sheila Toledo 39. Edward 6. Nancy 16. Deborah Church 34. George 40. Mary 7. Ronald 17. Dan via Leon 41. Mark 8. Sandra 18. Amy 9. Janice 19. Alan 26. Leon 10. Karl 20. JOhn 27. Lisa 21. Judy 28. walter 22. James 29. Cindy 23. Sarah 30. Chuck 31. Barbara 32. Bill Through various situations unrelated to this research, I had met at least 21 of the subjects before the start of the project. The 10 people recruited through catholic Social Services volunteered for the interview. The remaining subjects were recruited through other subjects, especially Patrick and George as indicated in Figure 11. Eugene was interviewed because he happened to be home when his wife was scheduled for an interview and he consented to participate. The designation via Leon in Figure 11 in the section of subjects drawn from a church group in Toledo indicates that Leon served as the contact person for arranging the 90 location and schedule of the interviews conducted in the Toledo church building. The recruitment process is of more than casual interest. Although this study consisted of interviews with all possible subjects with whom an interview could be arranged, the number of subjects was not that high. Also, the subjects were recruited through one person at a social service agency and through three other people. The concern here lies with the problem of distribution. Of this problem Agar writes, “. . . when you do your initial fieldwork with a few people, you had better worry about who they are“ (1980, p. 84). This project worked through Patrick and George, who had been identified as crucial to the loose refugee resettler network in Lansing, and with Leon in Toledo, who knew everyone who had served on the sponsoring committee in this church. These people were well-placed to know whom to contact, as was the Director of Refugee Services in Lansing. In some ways it is surprising that this agency did as much as it did to help in contacting people. Contrary to my eXperience in this project, Zetter claims that bureaucracies in general and probably refugee assistance agencies in particular “do not easily yield data about their latent characteristics, practices and objectives.“ He regards this reluctance to grant access to data as rooted in the fear that research into these matters tends to raise controversial and disturbing questions (1988, p. 3). In the course of this research, I encountered no such difficulty. Contrary to obstructing access to subjects, the director of refugee affairs at Catholic Services regretted that the confidentiality agreement which the agency had with all who sponsored refugees through it prevented her from granting immediate access to sponsors. Toward the end of the conversation she stated, “That's too bad [that immediate access 91 could not be permitted] because there are a lot of people who would like to talk with you, I think“ [paraphrase] (Journal note #13, June 18, 1986). PROCEDURES The research strategy sought data from three sources: a background questionnaire (Appendix A), open-ended interviews and observations. Each of these procedures will be discussed in turn. Backgroundguestionnaire The background questionnaire (Appendix A) was designed to gather basic information about the subjects regarding their age, sex, occupation, marital status and number of children, and to elicit responses about subjects' involvement with Asian people which could serve as starting points in the interviews. The first page asked for the basic information mentioned above. Then, based on earlier conversations, observations and reading, a set of eXperiences common to sponsors and American acquaintances of Asians was presented for respondents to indicate the kinds of activities in which they had been engaged with Asians. The next question asked respondents to list the groups of Asian peoples with which they had been involved. Because the subject set was designed to recruit people who related to Southeast Asian refugees, only the major groups of such refugees were listed. However, two blank spots, designated “other “ permitted additional responses. The next question asked whether the Asian people mentioned in the previous response had been refugees. Finally, the subjects were asked to rate their fluency in an Asian language and to indicate the language or languages. A second category of questions sought responses which could be used 92 as starting points for the interviews. The first question asked which Asian countries the subject had visited. Given the large number of Americans who served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam‘war, it was important to know if a given subject had had previous contact with one or more of the immigrant groups now living in the United States. Also, as a starting point in the interview it was possible that the subject's disposition toward earlier contact with Asians might affect that person's attitude toward Southeast Asian refugees now. The responses indicated that only four of the 40 subjects had visited an Asian country. Ronald had visited 12 Asian countries, including 20 visits to Japan. .All of the visits were connected with his work of training camp leaders for a youth organization. Thomas had lived in Japan for six months while in the United States Navy. Of greater interest were the responses of James and Judy. This married couple had been delegated by their church to visit refugee camps in Southeast Asia to locate refugees who were particularly hard to place in sponsorships. The church particularly wanted to sponsor such people. In this connection James and July spent four months in 1979 traveling in Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong. The next two questions asked about the amount of time per week which the subject spent with Asian peOple and, if the subject was married, whether the subject related to Asian people mainly alone or mainly with his or her spouse. The final three questions were open-ended. The first asked, “What can you tell me about your relationships with Asian people?“ This question was intended to give the subjects a chance to say just about anything they wanted with respect to such relationships. In the interview the responses could be used as starting points for questions. 93 The actual responses ranged from nothing (Chuck, Cindy, Helen, Henry, Janice, Louise and Ronald) to full statements. I have found that many Asian people are extremely polite, even to the point of saying to me what I want to hear when they do not agree with it. And in my experience, Asian men have never been less than perfect gentlemen. (Sheila) Our main contact has been through our church. I believe I best relate to them as a friend. I frequently serve as a liaison between them and other Americans. I also enjoy sharing with them at our home and theirs. (John) In reflection, I feel that I failed to instruct in more conservative ways financially. I did not have as good a spiritual relationship as probably could have been established. (Leon) The next question asked, “What's your strongest feeling about the Asian people to whom you relate?“ The purpose of this question was to elicit statements of feeling which could be eXplored more fully in face-to-face conversation. The responses ranged from nothing (Ann, Helen, Henry, Janice and Sandra) to the single words “love“ (Dorothy) and “positive“ (Mary) to brief statements: Some of them have become very good friends and Christian brothers and sisters. (Patrick) They are very warm and polite. (Kenneth) Friendship - admiration - love. (Nerma) Some more extensive statements were given also: Kinship, but also empathy for the experiences they have had in Asia and those facing them in this country. I haven't met one that I didn't like. (Dan) Admiration for their courage and tenacity and sometimes a feeling of annoyance - usually because I haven't understood their point of view. (Nancy) Asian people are one of the easiest culturally different people groups for me to befriend because they are considerate, respectful, and willing [underlined twice] to make friends with pe0ple outside their own ethnic group. (Sheila) The final question asked, “When did you first have contact with Asians? What was it like?“ These questions were intended to get the subjects to 94 document on paper the date of their first involvement with Asians as well as to elicit statements regarding the nature of the first involvement. Range of Ethnic Groups to‘Which Individual Subjects Related Previous studies of hosts of refugees which have used subject sets drawn from groups of sponsors have looked at Americans who have related to refugees from one or two ethnic groups. This phenomenon occurs because sponsors have tended to sponsor few refugees and only people from the same language/ethnic group. In distinction from these previous studies, several of the subjects of this research related to people from several national and cultural groups. Figure 12 indicates the range of contact which the subjects had with people from various cultural groups. 95 Figure 12. ETHNIC GROUPS OF REFUGEES WITH WHOM SUBJECTS REPORTED CONTACT Ethnic Name Lao Hmong Vietnamese cambodian Other 1. Alan x x 2. Alvin x x x 3. Amy x x x 4. Ann x 5. Barbara x 6. Bill x 7. Chuck x 8. Cindy x 9. Dan x x x 10. David x x x x 11. Deborah x x x 12. Dorothy x x x 13. Edward x 14 Elizabeth x 15. Eugene x x x x 16. George x x 17. Helen x x 18. Henry x 19. James x x x x 20. Janice x 21. John x x x 22. Jean x x x 23. Judy x x x x 24. Karen x x 25. Kenneth x 26. Leon x 27. Lisa x 28. Louise x 29. Mark x 30. Mary x x 31. Nancy x x 32. Norma x x 33. Patrick x x x x 34. Ronald x 35. Sandra x x 36. Sarah x 37. Sheila Thai 38. Tammy x x 39. Thomas x x 40. walter x TOTALS 30 19 24 5 The background questionnaire, corroborated by remarks made during the interviews, indicated that 30 subjects related to Lao people, 19 to 96 Hmong people, 24 to‘Vietnamese, and 5 to Cambodians. In addition, one subject (Sheila) held literacy tutorials with an Amerasian teenager from Thailand and one subject (Alvin) was involved with the resettlement of refugees from Poland and Iran in addition to having relationships with Lao, Hmong and Vietnamese refugees. His wife (Ann) was involved in resettling Poles and Iranians as well: however, on the questionnaire she indicated that she related to Lao people but not to Hmong or Vietnamese people. A more complex picture of the range of host involvement with . strangers emerges from an analysis of the incidence of subject involvement with more than one group of strangers. Five subjects reported relationships with Lao, Hmong, Vietnamese and Cambodian people. One of these (Patrick) reported involvement with Thai, Korean, Japanese and Filipino people as well. The other four subjects did not indicate involvement with strangers of groups other than the four mentioned. In a strict sense, Sheila related to an Amerasian teenager rather than to a refugee. The teenager was born in Thailand and entered the United States under normal immigration procedures based on her Thai mother's marriage to an American citizen. Eight subjects reported involvement with Lao, Hmong and Vietnamese people. Finally, four subjects reported involvement with Hmong and Vietnamese people. Figure 13 indicates the range of helping activities in which the subjects were involved with Southeast Asian refugees. A more complete listing appears as Appendix F. 97 Figure 13. EXPERIENCES SUBJECTS REPORTED WITH PEOPLE FRCM ASIAN COUNTRIES S TE LH F TC HR BS H EC p a n e e r a o o e i t o n h o u g g l i u o 'm p b u u r i n g l a p e g k e a l d s o l s h i 1 n h i i e y i l d o t s d t n r n l r r h g s g e n 1. Alan x x x x x 2. Alvin x x x x x x x x x 3. Amy x x x x x 4. Ann x x x 5. Barbara C x x x x x 6. Bill C x x 7. Chuck C x x 8. Cindy C x x x x 9. Dan x x x x x x x 10. David x x x 11. Deborah x x x x x x 12. Dorothy x x x x x x x 13. Edward C x x 14 Elizabeth x x 15. Eugene x x x x 16. George x x x x x x 17. Helen x x x x x 18. Henry x x x 19. James x x x x 20. Janice C x x x 21. JOhn x x 22. Joan x x x 23. Judy x x x x x 24. Karen x 25. Kenneth x 26. Leon C x 27. Lisa C x 28. Louise x 29. Mark x x x x x 30. Mary C x 31. Nancy x x x x x 32. Norma x x x x 33. Patrick x x x x 34. Ronald x x x x x x 35. Sandra x x x x x 36. Sarah x x x x 37. Sheila x x 38. Tammy C x x 39. Thomas C x x 40. walter x x x x x TOTALS 32 12 8 35 13 12 11 25 14 98 EXPLANATORY NOTES 1o FIGURE 13: 1. Under the §pgnsor category, subjects responding affirmatively are designated x or C. An x indicates that the subject placed a mark in appropriate place on the questionnaire. However, in the course of the interviews it became evident that a number of subjects who had participated in church committees which sponsored refugees did not indicate that they had been sponsors on the questionnaire. In Table 13 such subjects, i.e., those who participated in sponsorship committees but who did not so indicate on the questionnaire, appear with a g'in the Sponsor column. The questionnaire provided space for subjects to add categories beyond those given. The following list indicates the information stated in addition to subjects' responses to the given categories. “I Allan Enroll in welfare program: obtain medical services; advocate: adoption [of Korean girl as daughter]. Amy welfare (A.D.C.) advocate; advocate with landlord: advocate and active participant for medical/dental care. Ann Held sewing classes. Barbara Coordinator for finding furnishings, food and bedding for two [Lao] families: transportation. Bill Assistance in moving. Chuck Car pool. Cindy Transportation: sharing activities. Dan Move: long-term loan of a car; accompanied refugees to immigration processing occasions and to airports: clothing and home furnishing: attendance at family celebrations: emergency and routine medical visits: shopping: daily transportation: social welfare, job search. David Move: co-signed for cars: provided bail money; employer. Deborah Found doctors - advice on whether to consult a doctor, made appointments, always present in medical office with refugees for translation and explanation purposes at their request: helped get children in WOmen Infants and Children program: support person during labor and delivery of child Dorothy Elizabeth Eugene James Joan John Judy Karen Leon Lisa Mark Nancy Norma Patrick Sarah Sheila 99 at refugees' request; baby-sitter on rare occasions that refugees left their children. Parent. Employed with an Asian male. Employer: fishing companion: foster parent to two Vietnamese youth. Spent four months in Southeast Asian refugee camps in selection of families for denominations' churches in Canada. Transportation; taught children's class. Job search; assisted in buying cars: completed tax -‘ returns. Spent four months in Southeast Asian refugee camps in selection of families for denominations' churches in Canada. Home health teaching and care; foster parent for two Vietnamese youth. Employment interviewing: helped with financial matters (budget): family transportation: problem solving. Chauffeur. Job search: have had Asian students (not refugees) living in home: family hosts monthly dinners for international students and their families from a local university. Associated with Hmong in marketing their pg ndau [literally, “flower cloth,“ tapestry}: cooperative gardening project: employer; hostess for extended period. Help with medical needs; help with social services; help with school conferences. Job search: clothing and home furnishing. Taught class to prepare refugees for citizenship test; helped fill out forms for applying for citizenship. Provided transportation to church. 100 Tammy Offered hospitality and information: gave informal help with English conversation and usage; gave advice on schools to college students. Thomas Help with completing various state and federal government forms: help in obtaining welfare support: provided transportation to doctor, to Michigan Employment Security Commission office and to see case worker. Open-ended Interviews Whereas the background questionnaire provided basic, descriptive information about the subjects, open-ended interviews served as the major source of data from which to answer the research questions. The goal of the interviews was to discover the subjects' experience with strangers as they saw it. For the purpose of prompting the subjects to speak as naturally as possible, the interviews began with an open ended statement, usually, “What can you tell me about your contacts with Asian people?“ The interviews then moved to the specifics of what happened. Throughout the interviews subjects were asked for their stories. Attempts were made as well to obtain a time line of the individual subject's experience with Southeast Asians. To mitigate the problem of observer effects, those questions asking most directly about issues of meaning were reserved for late in the interviews. The initial part of each interview was devoted to questions which permitted the subjects to be egocentric and to narrate their experiences with few interruptions. This strategy was designed to get the subjects into their personal histories with refugees with minimal direction from the questioner. As an organizing and information eliciting principle a staircase model was used in constructing the interview protocols and in conducting the interviews themselves. This model is depicted in Figure 14. 101 Figure 14. STAIRCASE MODEL FOR ORGANIZING INTERVIEWS // GO FOR MEANING / / ASK WHAT / HAPPENED / / SPARK MEMORY In this model the role of the interviewer was to get the subject talking about her or his relationship with refugees by recalling a specific incident involving one or more refugees. The subject then was encouraged to talk about what happened in this event and then to probe further for the meaning the event had for the subject and the significance the event had for the development Of the subject's relationship with refugees. This staircase model was intended to organize the entire interview in a general way and on a smaller scale to organize the discussion around each point raised during the interview. The first interview was held with Patrick over breakfast in a Lansing restaurant on the morning of May 26, 1986, using the protocol which appears as Appendix B1. In addition to the purpose of gathering data from Patrick this first interview was designed to test a prototype for an interview protocol and to eXplore areas to which future protocol questions ought to be directed. The interview ranged over a number of topics pertaining to Patrick's involvement with Asians as well as with other people culturally different from him. The conversation began with the request, “Tell me about your experiences with Asian people.“ This request launched a lengthy recounting of Patrick's contact with missionaries in Korea early in life, as well as later contacts. Patrick 102 was then asked to organize his many experiences with Asians in terms of those which he recalled as outstanding. Because Patrick was a key contact person with other American hosts, a great deal of information had been gathered about him already. However, it was important to document this information for this research and to clarify ambiguities in previously acquired knowledge. Therefore, the next section asked questions about his weekly ministry. Patrick was asked to state the approximate amount of time which he spent with Asians on a weekly basis. Also, because Patrick's job took him away from Lansing from June through late August he was asked, “How do you feel now that you have to be away from them for the summer?“ The third section of the protocol inquired about the reasons why Patrick thought he had developed such an extensive involvement with Asians. The fourth section asked Patrick to discuss specific people within the group of his Asian acquaintances, specifically as to how they differed from the Americans he knew. He was then asked to give some examples of surprises Asians had given him. The final question asked, “Do you think the United States should allow or forbid the unrestricted immigration of Asian refugees?“ The rationale behind this question had to do with ongoing public discussions in the United States regarding the limitations on the number of refugees to be allowed into the country each year. It was thought that a subject's disposition toward the immigration of refugees would lead into further discussion as to the meaning which that subject's relationship with refugees had to him or her. Whereas the first protocol was tailored to what was known already 103 about Patrick and his extensive relationships with Southeast Asian refugees, the protocol for use with the other subjects, most of whom had not been recruited by May 26, had to be more general. The protocol used to organize the first interview with all of the other subjects began with the general question, “What can you tell me about your contacts with Asian people?“ This question was very similar to the first open-ended question on the second page of the background questionnaire. The question was placed first to connect the interview discussion with the written responses to the questionnaire. The second question inquired about the subject's first contact with an Asian person in terms of what happened and where the contact occurred. The subject was then asked to relate stories about him- or herself and Asians. These stories were crucial to elicit talk about nature of the person's relationship with Asians as well as to encourage conversation which would get into the area of meaning. The subject was then brought back to more specifics with a question asking for specific words with which the subject would characterize his or her relationship with Asians. This question was extended to cover different groups of Asians, difficulties in the relationships, comparisons with relationships with other people and examples supporting the assertions made in answer to the main question. Because language difference could be assumed to be one of the major differences between all of the subjects and the refugees concerned, the next question asked for the subject's comments on communicating with Asians. The question was extended to deal with different groups of Asians. The final section here asked for examples of communication issues. The last question asked was, “What has your involvement with Asians 104 done to your other relationships?“ The goal here was to get the subject to contrast relationships with Asians to relationships with people from other groups. Here too, the three step staircase model depicted in Figure 14 lay behind the question. Subjects were asked first to remember something by which to respond to the question in a general way. Next they were asked to give specific examples. Finally, they were encouraged to discuss the meaning which contrasts in the relationships had for them. To save time and to engage in more of a conversational interview rather than a question and answer session, married couples were interviewed together. Figure 15 differentiates interviews done with a single subject from those which were done with two subjects. In these interviews the researcher attempted to get the participants to interact together about their experience. Figure 15. ‘WAYS IN WHICH SUBJECTS WERE INTERVIEWED SUBJECTS INTERVIEWED SINGLY SUBJECTS INTERVIEWED TOGETHER Louise Patrick Ronald Elizabeth Karen Mark walter Kenneth Norma Eugene Karl Mary Henry Nancy George Sheila Janice Helen Leon Tammy Judy Sandra Sarah Edward Lisa Thomas James Ann David Amy Alvin Dorothy Alan Cindy JOhn Barbara Chuck Joan Bill Dan Deborah All of the interviews were recorded overtly on audio tape. Fieldnotes notes were taken during all of the interviews. After the 105 interviews the tapes were indexed in the pattern shown in Appendix E. Additional fieldnotes were made from an analysis of the tapes. The various sets of notes served as the primary sources of data for the analytic phase of the research. Observations In addition to the interviews, six observations of two literacy tutorials provided important opportunities to study two American hosts in close interaction with refugees. Four of these observations involved Louise and a Chinese-Lao woman. The other two were of Amy and a Hmong woman. All six of the observations occurred in the kitchens of the learners. During the year preceding the data gathering phase of the research, Amy had initiated a literacy program for Southeast Asian refugees in the Lansing area. Sheila and Louise served as tutors in this program. At the time when data was being gathered for the research only a few tutorials were being conducted. It was possible to arrange for observations of four tutorials involving Louise and a Chinese-Lao woman and two tutorials involving Amy and a Hmong woman. In all of these observations I occupied the observer slot in the range of roles possible for a participant observer. All six of the observations resulted in numerous fieldnotes. The notes served in particular as the basis for a second interview with Louise. In this interview specific questions were asked to clarify ambiguities in the fieldnotes and to explore communications issues. The questions appear in the fieldnotes. Summary of Data GatheringProcedures The interviews and observations yielded fieldnotes and audio tapes. All of these materials are listed in Figure 16. An indication is given 106‘ as well of the quality of the audio tape. The list groups together married couples, all of whom were interviewed jointly. In terms of the total data set a practical consequence Of jointly interviewing married couples was that a poor quality recording reduced the amount of data available from two subjects rather than from just one. The observations and interviews yielded the sources of data identified in Figure 16. The audio quality of the tapes has been indicated as 95, FAIR or £993.- The designation 95 indicates that at least 90 per cent of the recorded statements could be understood. A EA;3_ ' rating indicates that 50 to 90 per cent of the recorded statements could be understood. A gggg_rating indicates that less than 50 per cent of the tape contains statements which could be understood using a standard tape player. 107 Figure 16. SOURCES OF DATA YIEIDED BY INTERVIEWS AND OBSERVATIONS SUBJECT DATE OBSERVATION INTERVIEW’ AUDIO TAPE QUALITY 1986 NOTES NOTES TAPE 1. Louise 6-11 YES NO -- 6-12 YES YES OK 6-25 YES NO -- 7- 7 YES YES OK 7- 9 YES YES OK 7-16 YES NO -- 2. Patrick 5-26 YES YES FAIR 3. Elizabeth 7-10 YES YES OK 4. Deborah 6- 1 YES YES OK 5. Dan 6- 1 YES YES OK 6. Karen 6-12 YES YES OK 7. Karl 6-12 YES YES OK 8. Ronald 7- 1 YES YES OK 9. walter 7-19 YES YES OK 10. Kenneth 7- 8 YES YES OK 11. NOrma 7-24 YES YES OK 12. Ann 7-29 YES YES OK 13. Alvin 7-29 YES YES OK 14. Henry 7- 1 YES YES OK 15. Nancy 7- 2 YES YES OK 16. Judy 7-18 YES YES OK 17. James 7-18 YES YES OK 18. Dorothy 6-18 YES YES BROKEN TAPE 19. David 6-18 YES YES BROKEN TAPE 20. George 6-16 YES YES OK 21. Cindy 7-20 YES YES OK 22. Chuck 7-20 YES YES OK 23. Sheila 7-11 YES YES FAIR 24. Janice 6-30 YES YES OK 25. Mary 7-17 YES YES OK 26. Mark 7-17 YES YES OK 27. Lisa 7-19 YES YES OK 28. Leon 7-19 YES YES OK 29. Tammy 6-25 YES YES OK 30. Thomas 6-25 YES YES OK 31. Helen 7-31 YES YES OK 32. Sandra 6-30 YES YES OK 33. Sarah 6-26 YES YES OK 34. Amy 6-13 YES NO -- 6- 5 YES NO NO -- 6-17 YES NO NO -- 6-26 YES YES FAIR 35. Alan 6-26 YES YES FAIR 36. Joan 5-29 YES YES POOR 37. John 5-29 YES YES POOR 38. Barbara 7-19 YES YES OK 39. Bill 7-19 YES YES OK 40. Edward 7- 2 YES YES OK 108 Figure 16 does not indicate numerous telephone conversations with various subjects. Because all of the subjects were contacted by telephone with a brief conversation ensuing, these calls constitute another source of information. Even if they did not result in fieldnotes, the calls were part of the process of establishing rapport with the subjects and of informing the researcher about how the hosts viewed their relationships with the refugee strangers. Information drawn from the calls was recorded in a journal. The journal was used as well to sketch out hunches as to what was happening in the project, initial answers to the research questions, and random observations (for examples see Appendix G). Figure 17 gives the citation system used throughout the dissertation to identify the source of quotations and the location of data presented in summary form. 109 Figure 17. CITATION SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING SOURCES OF DATA (FN date, min. ##) (FN date, p. ##) (Tape ## - ##) (J ##I date) (Name's Questionnaire) Used for citations to field notes to indicate the number of minutes which had elapsed since the start of the interview or observation. If the pseudonym of the subject is not indicated in the text, it appears immediately before the date. A + appears after some minute numbers to indicate that the note falls between numbers written in the notes, rather than at an exact minute indicator. Used for citations to field notes for vignettes or summaries. Indicates date and page number in field notes. Used for citations to an interview or observation tape. Numbers indicate the tape counter numbers for the beginning and end of the quotation or summary as played on a Sony Micro cassette-Corder M-203 at 1.2 cm speed. Journal entry number and date. Subject's name and background questionnaire. CLASSIFICATION OF THE PROCEDURES How can this study be classified? Given its lack of numerical data and statistical manipulation, it cannot be classified in the quantitative tradition. However, its heavy dependence on interviews with few observations makes it suspect to mainstream ethnographers. For example, Frake objects to classifying as ethnographies studies depending exclusively on interviews. He writes: Let me emphasize, however, that I do not believe an adequate ethnography can be produced from a record only of what people say, most specifically it cannot be produced from a record only of what people say in artificial interviewing contexts removed from the scene of their ordinary cultural performances. (1964, p. 133) Although they do not state the matter as strongly as Frake, McDermott, Gospodinoff and Aron (1978) also concentrate on activities as the prOper 110 object of an ethnography: The object of any ethnography is to describe some people's activities and to locate these activities within the various contexts for their occurrence. There is a requirement . . . that such a description of behavior and its contexts be presented in a way that readers can decide for themselves whether or not to believe the ethnographer's account of what it is that a particular group of people is doing at any given time. (p. 276) Although the field research for this study included six observations, it did depend heavily on “artificial interviewing contexts removed from the scene of their ordinary cultural performances.“ This situation had to obtain because the face-to-face interactions between this particular set of hosts and strangers do not occur within an institutional, scheduled framework. Rather, they tend to occur when required because of a specific need. The study fits more closely Tammivaara and Enright's assertion that ethnographies intend “to delineate patterns of behavior, meaning, and meaning construction through direct contact and in terms of specific situations“ (1986, p. 107). Because of its goal of delineating the meaning which intercultural interactions had for certain people and of discovering the ways in which hosts constructed meaning for their relationships with strangers, the study accomplishes ethnographic purposes even if it cannot be termed an ethnography in a standard sense. The term fieldwork presents fewer problems as a descriptor of the type of methods employed in this research than does the term ethnography. The research did involve the researcher getting out into the field, namely into subjects' homes as well as a limited number of observations of situations involving face-to-face interaction between the American subjects and the Southeast Asian refugees to whom they related. However, the small number of observations, the heavy reliance on arranged 111 interviews and the limited scope of the study all preclude the possibility of classifying it as an ethnography. Thus, the term fieldwork identifies the study accurately in terms of the location of data gathering and general approach while avoiding overstating the project as a full-scale ethnography. Fieldwork methodology offered a methodological construct and specific methods appropriate to the problem set for this research. This understanding of the appropriateness of fieldwork accords with Erickson's (1986) recommendation: 1. When a research issue involves considering the distinctive local meanings that actors have for actors in the scene at the moment, fieldwork is an appropriate method. (p. 122) This research investigated the local meanings which contact with Southeast Asian refugees had for a sample of Americans. The goal of the project was not only to describe, but also to interpret the understanding or meaning which such contact had for people acting as hosts for culturally different people. Therefore, fieldwork offered an appropriate methodological framework and set of methods for the study. NEGOTIATING ENTRY AND INFORMED CONSENT The rights and welfare of the subjects of this research had to be protected under rules established by Michigan State University's Cbmmittee on Research Involving Human Subjects. This committee granted approval for the procedures of the research and for the consent forms proposed to secure the subjects' informed consent. Negotiations for informed consent to participate in the study and for scheduling an interview were made over the telephone with all subjects except for Patrick, Deborah, Eugene, Joan, John, Amy and Alan. However, interview times and locations with these subjects were confirmed 112 over the telephone. At the time of initial contact the issue Of informed consent was raised. Either through the mail or at the time of the interview a signed consent form (Appendix C) was obtained. The background questionnaire (Appendix A) was distributed at the same time as the consent form. Entry negotiations were more complicated for the observed literacy tutorials. For the Chinese-Lao woman in the four literacy tutorials tutored by Louise, Louise negotiated consent. The Chinese-Lao woman signed a consent form during the first part Of the third tutorial. Amy, agreed to negotiate consent with the woman in the two literacy tutorials which she tutored. Throughout all entry negotiations it was crucial to establish rapport quickly without constructing a tense situation by treating the consent form and the background questionnaire as a test. This problem was aided by the fact that I knew many Of the American subjects and both of the Asians who participated as learners in the literacy tutorials which I observed before the start of the project. It was aided further because contact with the other American subjects came through people they knew and because those who responded to the letter by Catholic Social Services did so voluntarily. DEALING WITH THE PROBLEM OF OBSERVER EFFECTS Because of the intensity of individual or small group interviews, the problem of observer effects loomed large in the planning which guided this project. The problem had two difficult components. First, as Agar observes, “An ethnography is first of all a function of the ethnographer, who brings to his or her work the tradition in which he or she 113 participates, including the training received in professional socialization“ (1986, p. 18). .Although this study cannot be classified as a full-scale ethnography, it involves the same fieldwork methodology and orientation as would obtain in such a study. Therefore, this research participated in the problem Agar addresses, namely, that the observer attended to statements, events and behaviors which stand out for him and that the observer makes sense of the statements heard and events and behaviors in terms of his tradition. The problem of observer effects was complicated in a second way by " the researcher's non-research involvements in the lives of several of the subjects. In the year immediately before the research the researcher worked for a Lansing area Christian church to which seven of the subjects belong. Responsibilities for this job included building bridges within the congregation between the American and Asian members as well as providing inter-cultural training sessions for the Americans. These sessions included two workshOps in which 12 subjects participated. In some sense this involved participant observation with a strong shift toward the participant end of the scale. However, before the study the researcher's roles with respect to the subjects included workshop facilitator, paid colleague and provider of questions, advice and resource materials. This may have contributed to subjects viewing the researcher as an expert on refugee and intercultural matters. This problem was indicated at the start of the interview with Karen and Karl. Just as the interview began Karl said, “I haven't read any studies or anything.“ Before the interview had begun he had received a list of resources for people involved in refugee resettlement and been lent a copy of The Hmong in Transition (Hendricks, Downing & Deinard, 1986). 114 DATA ANALYSIS As the data was being gathered, trial assertions were made in the fieldnotes toward answers to the research questions. The audio tapes were indexed as shown in Appendix E. Additional notes were made while listening to the tapes. All of these materials were analyzed for evidence to support answers to the research questions. The goal was to find patterns of complimentary and/or contrasting statements within a given's subjects statements and across the responses of two or more subjects. Because the number of observations completed in the course of the research was so limited, information from the observations served more as general background information than as a source of large amounts of primary data. The answers developed through this comparative, interpretive process and supporting evidence appear in the fourth chapter. In analyzing the tape recordings of the interviews, some effort was made to measure the passage of time. In the interview transcripts which appear in chapter four, such measurement is indicated by using the punctuation mark ppgipg_to indicate that a second passed between words or between periods in a pause of longer than one second. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS This dissertation used fieldwork methods, especially open-ended interviews and a few participant observations, to describe and interpret the experience of Americans who have entered voluntary helping relationships with Southeast Asian refugees. The study explored in particular the nature and meaning of a set of intercultural refugee-host relationships from the hosts' perspectives. This research was guided by a primary question as well as by four subsidiary questions. The general question asked: How do American hosts who relate to Southeast Asian refugees understand their relationship to these culturally different strangers? The following three subsidiary questions provided additional guidance to the project: 1. What sorts of relationships do the hosts see as having been established between themselves and the culturally different refugees? 2. What meanings do these relationships have for the hosts? 3. What factors appear to facilitate and which appear to hinder the development of long-term relationships between hosts and refugees? Chapter three described the sample of Americans who were interviewed and observed as well as all of the research procedures employed in the study. Part of the description included a listing of the principal types of activity in which the Americans had engaged with respect to the refugees. In one sense, the list of activities as well as the other 115 116 information presented about the Americans was not known before the beginning of the research process. Therefore, it can be considered information that was found as a result of the process. However, in a stricter sense, this information learned about the subjects was necessary background data rather than information found in relation to the research questions. Therefore, although chapter three contains a range of information about American hosts of culturally different refugees, chapter four concentrates on answers to the research questions. Chapter four consists of three sections. The first section describes the experience of the subjects. The second part interprets the subjects' experiences from an outsider's point of view and reports factors which appear to have facilitated and hindered the subjects' relationships with refugees. The third section offers a grounded theory as a way of organizing the American hosts' understandings of their relationship to the refugees. In a broader sense, the entire enterprise must be regarded as interpretive because the interview process, the data analysis and the construction which appears below all involved interpretation. Nonetheless, the focus of the first section falls on words spoken by the subjects arranged in frameworks which fit what they said. The goal of the second section is to interpret deliberately how these people understand their relationships with refugees. The goal of the third section is to state very briefly a theoretical way of thinking about the preceding description and interpretation. DESCRIPTION OF HOW AMERICAN HOST SUBJECTS UNDERSTOOD THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO SOUTHEAST ASIAN REFUGEES Answers to the general research question as well as to the first and second subsidiary questions can be organized in terms of four 117 orientations or types. The term for the type indicates the dominant orientation expressed by a given American toward his or her relationships with Southeast Asian refugees. The four orientations appear in Figure 18 with brief explanatory statements following the figure. Following the explanations, each of the orientations is discussed in terms of the statements of a subject or set of subjects which represent the orientation. Although all of the subjects except for Louise and Sheila related to more than one Southeast Asian person, the words relationship and refugee appears in singular number below. At various times even Louise and Sheila interacted with several Southeast Asian persons. However, in terms of relationships the literacy tutorials in which they were engaged tied them to one Southeast Asian. The singular number was chosen to make possible application of the orientations framework to other situations without the requirement that the subjects interact with more than one stranger. Further, with the exception of the task orientation, by definition the orientations focus attention on one person or married couple. 118 Figure 18. AMERICAN HOSTS' ORIENTATIONS WARD SOUTHEAST ASIAN REFUGEES Orientation Characteristics Familial words usually applied to members of biological family Orientation used to discuss the refugee and the relationship. Refugee viewed as an adopted member of the host's family. Refugee distinguished from other refugees and seen as an individual person. Friendship Words usually applied to friends and friendships used Orientation to discuss the refugee and the relationship. Refugee viewed in about the same way as an American friend. Refugee distinguished from other refugees and seen as an individual person having unique attributes. Client WOrds usually reserved for client relationships used to Orientation discuss the refugee and the relationship. Refugee viewed as someone whom the American can help. Refugee may be distinguished from other refugees in terms of particular needs and personality characteristics, but not seen as a fully distinct person. Task Refugees not fitted into an interpersonal category. Orientation Refugee seen as the object of helping activity. Refugee resettlement seen as an end in itself. The orientations presented above and used to organize the talk of the subjects below must not be seen as mutually exclusive categories. An individual host may manifest two or more orientations toward various refugees or toward the same refugee on different occasions or in different situations. However, one of the orientations tends to dominate the American host's understanding. The orientations introduced above and employed below have nothing to do with extent of empathy. For example, Barbara expressed strong empathy for the refugees to whom she related: but, most of her involvements with the refugee family which she helped sponsor were in terms of activity. Further, the titles given to the orientations are not intended to convey moral quality. Within the context of this research, all are regarded as morally worthy. Subjects who talked about refugees as their clients are 119 clients are to be regarded as neither morally more virtuous nor more reprehensible than other Americans who discussed their relationships with Southeast Asian refugees or any other group of culturally different groups of strangers in familial or friendship terms. Familial Orientation: David and Dorothy as Examples David and Dorothy can be classified as American hosts who assumed familial roles with respect to the Southeast Asian refugees with whom they established relationships and who talked about their relationships using words appropriate to family members. Within the grouplof subjects, David and Dorothy were among those who devoted the most time to the relationships and who stayed with intense relationships the longest. David and Dorothy were not the only subjects to take refugees into their own homes. Patrick, Sandra, walter, Nancy, and Elizabeth and Karl all invited refugees into their homes for varying periods of time. Further, Allan and Amy, as well as Eugene and Karen had adopted young Asian children. David and Dorothy stand out because they took older refugees into their home with the intention of establishing adoptive family ties. David and Dorothy had been involved with‘Vietnamese, Lao and Hmong refugees (Tape 474). At the time of the interview David and Dorothy lived in the Lansing, Michigan, area. David held a bachelor's degree in engineering and managed an industrial plant. Dorothy had a high school diploma and worked in a supermarket: however, during the interview she stated her intention to resign from the position. David and Dorothy's involvement with refugees began about 1978 in Ohio (David's questionnaire) when they attended a meeting called by a local church to discuss refugee sponsorship. They recalled that 120 approximately thirty people attended the meeting. Based on the assumption that the effort to resettle two small families would be about the same as that required to resettle one large family, the group decided to sponsor two small families rather than one large family. The group choose a particular small family because it had a new baby. The group regarded this family as having an especially important need for help because they thought that it would be hard to keep a baby alive in a refugee camp. David and Dorothy offer an example of subjects who characterized their relationships with refugees in familial terms. David and Dorothy had four biological children. In addition to these children, they spoke of their special sons, Southeast Asian refugees whom they welcomed into their home. As she showed pictures from a photo album of young Southeast Asian men whom she and her husband had sponsored and/or with whom they had established close relationships, Dorothy insisted that she regarded these Special sons as her own children. When the second special son got married, “This was our kid getting married“ (FN 6-18-86, 22 min.). Dorothy: And these kids are not ah, these are not name only kids. These are kids where you take the good with the bad. You know you take . . . . you take the problems you take, you know, just your own kids . . . . they move in and out. They call you when they need things. They . . . David said softly: . . . cars . . . Dorothy: . . . cars (laughter) I mean, just everything. Just like your . . . just like you did to your mother. . . . but you know as we moved along with these . . . young people and as we got more and more involved with them this was the group that our heart went out to. These kids may be eighteen and the law may say they're old enough to be out on their own, but they're not old enough to be out on their own. (Tape 334-344) Toward the end of the interview, Dorothy indicated that she felt a high degree of closeness between herself and the refugees with whom she 121 shared relationships. In response to the question, “Anything else that you'd like to say about the relationships?“ Dorothy commented: Um . . . there hasn't been one family that that that one person that we've been involved with that that we're not really close to. ‘we have not lost anyone. Which really pleases me because you just learn to love each other and it would break my heart to have, you know, to have a falling out. (Tape 559-562) Dorothy and David also discussed the comprehensive scope of their involvement in the lives of refugees. The following quotation begins with Dorothy's summary statement indicating that, from her perspective, she and David had dealt with almost every aspect in the lives of the refugees with whom they were involved. David and Dorothy then gave two examples to illustrate the extent of their involvement. Dorothy: . . . There's no aspect almost of living that we haven't been involved in 'cause we've been involved with so many people . . . I mean we have . . . there just is, there just is nothing that hardly we haven't done . . . (Tape 457) David: ‘We sat down and, Asian style, and negotiated a marriage contract . . . as the parents of the groom . . . signed it and couldn't read a doggone word on the paper except my name too, that was... Dorothy: went to court with a fellow‘who was prosecuted for welfare fraud. . . . lost. Had to pay back about five six thousand dollars . . . because he didn't understand. He was a second migration fellah and he didn't understand that he was breaking the law at one point doing what he was doing . . . and, ah, so you know he lost the case . . . we went through that with him. Just, just everything. (Tape 469) For David and Dorothy, extensive and intensive familial relationships were not established nor did they endure without stress and pain for themselves. Dorothy reflected on this outcome in terms of the impact on her own biological children of having refugee children living in her home. These kids grew up together, you know. He's [“Dan“, one of her four natural children] the one that's taken the lumps. And in . if you were going to adopt a child you would've adopted one younger. You would have made some preparations in your family to prepare 'em. 122 You wouldn't have adopted a twin on 'im . . .I mean there was no preparation. This is all of the sudden . . . you know we all agreed this is what we wanted to do and the kids agreed too but they really didn't know what they were agreeing to. And that Dan has really done a super, super job of . . . . but I'm sure he's had his, you know [unclear] . . you get your nose out of joint. (Tape 297-304) Their heavy involvement in the lives of refugees had brought David and Dorothy into some difficult situations. For example, the second family which they sponsored had marital problems. In the middle of one night David and Dorothy received a telephone call. The refugee woman was screaming. Her husband had beaten her. David and Dorothy called the police and accompanied the officers to the refugees' home. When they arrived, they learned that in the course of the beating the wife had bitten a piece out of the husband “like he was a piece of meat“ (Tape 464). The example of David and Dorothy also indicates something of the limits of the familial orientation. Despite their active involvement as members of a Christian church and despite the origin of their relationships with refugees within the context of a church sponsorship program, David and Dorothy stated that they did not involve themselves in the refugees' religious lives. Although they stated that they loved to have refugees accompany them to church worship services, they regarded themselves as neutral in their attitude toward the religion of their refugee friends and special sons. This is not to say that refugees may not have felt informal, unstated pressure to conform to David and Dorothy's religion. It is to say that from David and Dorothy's perspective overt religious proselytism was not included in their understanding of their relationship with refugees. David and Dorothy saw themselves in a category separate from that of many other refugee resettlers. Their close, family-style 123 relationships with refugees, in their eyes, were not characteristic of many sponsor-refugee relationships which they had observed. Thus, they saw themselves somewhat separated from other Americans involved in refugee resettlement. This assertion can be grounded in remarks about their willingness to invite refugees into their home. Dorothy stated that she and her husband had had the families whom they had sponsored in their home: For dinners and stuff like that. David: And there were just a lot of people who wouldn't do that. Dorothy: And these are our family and our friends. David: Which was surprising to me that . . . Dorothy: Ah huh . . . David: . . . that, ah, that even of the sponsor families they wouldn't uh . . . that they didn't really socialize . . . Dorothy: . . . didn't develop a friendly . . . or maybe comfortable feeling with . . . and we haven't always agreed . . . I mean, you know, we've had our . . . disagreements. But, um . . . Interviewer: Disagreements with . . . Dorothy: well, it's sometimes those families you've sponsored or something, I mean, it hasn't always been smooth sailing, no relationship is. But we've stayed friends with everyone. They are our family. Interviewer: What do you think accounts for them? [sic] Dorothy: Um . . . . I think that they know that we really care about them and I think they really care about us. . . . I mean it's not a business arrangement and I think that . . . I think we've done . . . in the beginning when we were sponsoring, Dave and I, a minimum of telling other people what to do. If we're asked we'll give advice. Same with these kids. They're all grown. They all got . . . don't always with what . . . you know, they're doing and things but um . . . we don't try butting in everybody's business and . . . David: Yeah, we probably did more of that [unclear] with the very first family we sponsored . . . to be overly protective and think you have to . . . Dorothy: Tell them how to lead their life. David: Tell them how . . . . what they can and can't do. (Tape 1060-80) When asked for an example of a refugee going against their advice they recounted a story of a man who purchased an automobile which they had strongly advised him not to buy. David and Dorothy saw themselves as heavily involved with refugees 124 in a personal, familial way. From their perspective, their personal stance toward refugees placed them in frequent conflict with the bureaucratic policies of governmental and private agencies involved in refugee resettlement. They viewed themselves as objectors to the agencies. Dorothy stated, “very seldom do we ever agree with the agencies. . . We, we buck the system“ (Tape 396). rothy regarded some of her early actions with respect to refugees as mistakes. She viewed some of these early mistakes as stemming from her attempts to live up to the expectations of the agencies, especially the agencies' goal of getting the refugees into jobs and thereby reducing their dependence on the public welfare system. Dorothy saw her differences with the agencies as directly related to the difference in the nature and intensity of her relationships with refugees over against the relationships of agency personnel with refugees. Most of the government people aren't, the agency people are not involved personally with the people they're sponsoring. They don't really know what a lot of the problems and and barriers that they have to making a new life for themselves. They [have] a book that tells them that they have ninety days to get this person employed. (Tape 1090-1094) David and Dorothy stated their desire to see the refugees, especially the young men with whom they have had such heavy involvement, in school upon arrival in the United States. From their perspective the agencies would prefer employment as soon as possible. They spoke about a new, young refugee man whose arrival they expected very soon. They anticipated that the agency involved would want him to get a job washing dishes in a Chinese restaurant. David and Dorothy preferred to see him enrolled in school to give him a chance at financial success in life. The young men who had lived with them had done so at no cost to the refugees and all had attended school. David and Dorothy recognized the difficulty the 125 young refugees had in studying because of the language barrier. “It takes them much longer to study. The language is such a barrier“ (Tape 1115). This language barrier became apparent to them very early in their involvement with refugees because of the comparison they were able to make between one of the young men who lived with them and one of their natural sons. They saw the refugee studying far more hours than their son but getting lower grades in high school. They attributed this 4 discrepancy to a difference in English language facility. Dorothy: It took just hours and hours and hours longer to do his homework every night than what Michael. David: Who never did his . . . . . Dorothy: He [Michael] could get because every word that the refugee went through, he, it was new. (Tape 1117-1122) David and Dorothy regarded education as important because of their view that it took more schooling for a refugee to get a highly paid job than would be required of an American. Friend Orientation: Norma as Example NOrma offers an example of a subject who spoke of the refugees to whom she related as friends. At the time of the interview, Norma had worked with approximately 30 Hmong families, some of whom had moved away from the Lansing area by the date of the interview. She had come into contact with all of these people through a program in which she taught literacy and English as a second language. Norma reported close relationships involving frequent contact with two people, both of them Hmong women. One of these women was Norma's first English as a second language and literacy student. Norma identified her as “ . . . one of the closest, dearest ones I've had“ (FN, 7-24-86, min. 62). This woman presented NOrma with few of the usual 126 opportunities for helping presented by refugees to the Americans who related to them. In Norma's judgment, the woman was self-sufficient. The relationship ended when the woman moved to California. Norma's involvement with a second Hmong woman, Shoua, was intense, frequent and was happening during the general time frame of the interview. It also required more of a service-provider role for Norma than did her first relationship. Norma met Shoua when Shoua and her family moved to Lansing from another city. The sponsor of Shoua's family wrote to Norma's church asking the church to help the family settle in Lansing. Norma became involved through the church. Norma identified greater need as the reason for her heavier than usual involvement in Shoua's life. “I do more for her because she needs more done“ (FN, 7-24-86, min. 62). Because Shoua did not know how to drive and because her husband did not like to drive, Norma was called upon frequently to provide transportation service as a friend might do. Shoua also telephoned Norma at least once a week, sometimes just to ask Norma how she was or whether She had gone to church on Sunday. Norma identified Shoua as the only one of her Hmong acquaintances who telephoned just to talk without presenting a specific need which they wanted Norma to meet. Norma was aware of at least two other refugees who used Shoua as a conduit through which to pass information to her. Norma's expressions of friendship for the Hmong people with whom she was involved appear in the following quotations: I've grown to live them as individuals . . . we're friends. (FN 7-24-86, min. 50) They are part of my life. . . . As much as they are part Of my life, I think I am a part of their life. (FN 7-24-86, min. 80) When asked to illustrate her statement that her refugee friends were 127 part of her life and she part of their's, Norma related that a Hmong woman had said that She would pray for NOrma'S son while he travelled in Africa. Norma interpreted this expression of concern as a measure of the closeness which her Hmong friends felt toward her. Norma illustrates the friendship orientation as well as the tendency, to be discussed later, for the American subjects to discuss their relations with refugees in terms of one refugee or one refugee family. From Norma's account of her involvements with Southeast Asian refugees, when the Hmong people to whom she related were together, if one of them had better English skills than the others, then that person would serve as the principal communicator for the Hmong group. In addition, within Norma's circle of Hmong friends, especially those for whom she served as a literacy tutor and as a teacher of English as a second language, other students tended to communicate with Nonma through her close Hmong friend Shoua. Norma's case illustrates how the use of a person with superior language skills as a go-between can accentuate a relationship with one person. Even if the American wishes to become friends with other refugees or even just to interact with them, the need for an interpreter can preclude the development of further relationships and focus the American's attention on one refugee. walter provided another example of an American involved with Southeast Asian refugees whose orientation toward them can be characterized as that of friend. He reported that, beginning in 1979, he had been involved in efforts to resettle two Lao refugee families. The first effort was directed toward a family which lived in his home for the first three days following their arrival in the United States. 128 The brief period of living in the same house provided time for intense interpersonal interaction between walter and the refugees. At least some of this interaction involved the communication of information about skills needed to survive in a house typical for middle-socio- economic status Americans. walter mentioned teaching members of the Lao family how to obtain a drink of water from a faucet and how to use a western-style toilet. This period of intense activity was followed by a gradual lessening of personal interaction. However, six years after the initial resettlement effort, walter stated, “I still feel close to this family“ (FN 7-19-90, min. 4). He claimed that the bonding experiences made possible by living in the same house had left him with close feelings for this particular Lao family. Such close feelings tended toward the familial orientation: however, because walter had spent little time with the Lao family for several years between his extensive involvement with them and the date of the interview, his other remarks place his statements in the friendship category. Two or three years after the arrival of the first Lao family, walter chaired a church committee which sponsored a second Lao family. This committee included subjects Barbara, Bill, Chuck, Cindy, Leon and Lisa. ‘With respect to this second family, walter attempted to involve as many Americans as possible in the resettlement effort with a corresponding diminution of his own role. He identified some of the best times that he had with the second family as occurring when he visited with the Lao man on a free afternoon. For him, key times were sitting around the table in the Lao home drinking tea, “People to people . . . drinking tea“ (FN 7-19-90, min. 18 and following). However, he reported that such occasions came infrequently. 129 In reflecting on his involvements in the lives of the two Lao families, the first of which he continued to visit on an almost weekly basis, walter responded with the following statements: I, you know, right now feel friends to both of them [both of Lao families which he helped resettle] . . . could very comfortably go and see them and talk with them and I think . . . the feeling is mutual. I think they've contributed a lot to our culture. . . . These two families have contribu . . . contributed to the respective churches immensely . . . just immensely. Researcher: What would some of those things be? well, I think and and and the ah first church . . . a lady an older lady at the woman's missionary society who is in charge of making quilts, when the first question came up, 'Can we, should we invite this [Lao] lady to a to a meeting?‘ she said, 'Well, how . . . how can we invite her to a meeting? we just talk all the time, you know, we talk over the quilt? well, she wouldn't we couldn't understand her and she couldn't understand us.' But She wanted to come. . . . But, but the ladies, but the ladies [inaudible] . . . and ah she [inaudible] . . . and from that time its grown a very strong relationship among these women who have their own little little clique making quilts . . . this refugee who has been a major contributor to the quilt making . . . she is gifted in in in some of these ways and one she learned what was going on she became a contributor. (Tape 389-410) Regarding the second church (i.e., that of Barbara, Bill and others), walter recounted a story of change in one of the church elder's attitudes which he regarded as a positive outcome. Early in the resettlement process the elder told walter that he believed that the refugees would never become members of the church. Later in the resettlement process the elder expressed amazement that the refugees participated in public worship services at all (FN min. 17). Client Orientation: Kenneth as Example The client orientation highlights a host perspective on refugees in which words usually reserved for client relationships were used to discuss the refugee and the relationship. A refugee to whom a host 130 related was viewed as someone whom the host could help achieve specific goals. Although the refugee could be distinguished from other refugees in terms of particular needs and personality characteristics, the refugee was not seen as a fully distinct person. The interview with Kenneth provides an example of such an orientation. Kenneth began his involvement with the refugees sponsored by his church with little planning. Although he was not overly eager for the group to be involved, the group decided to assume responsibility for a Lao family. At first another person played the key role in organizing the effort. However, when this person moved away from the area, the level of Kenneth's involvement increased. He was also involved with Southeast Asian refugees sponsored by his church in his role as chairperson of the church's deacons. Kenneth's involvement in refugee matters was extensive; however, his face-to-face contact with the Lao family on a friendship basis was minimal. He stated that his efforts on the Laotians' behalf had been “fire fighting and trouble shooting.“ As the chairperson of the sponsoring committee, it fell to him to fight fires as they arose (FN 7—8-86, min. 8). Task Orientation: Mark and Mary as Examples Mark and Mary exemplified the task orientation. Their involvement with refugees began in 1979 when the social concerns group in their church decided to sponsor a refugee family. As at least a preliminary motivation, Mary and Mark saw themselves as responding to a Biblical commandment to help homeless people. The social concerns group was looking specifically for someone to coordinate the church's resettlement effort and offered Mark the position. He accepted. 131 No one in the social concerns group entered the resettlement enterprise with previous experience in resettling refugees. In Mark's words, “we really didn't know exactly what we were getting into“ (Tape 33). The group did get into much work and expense. In the three to four months of preparation time, people in the church raised the down payment for a house and purchased one for the refugee family. Mark was part of the group which welcomed the Lao family at the airport. Because Mary was in the advanced stages of pregnancy, she remained at home. At a later date, she met the family at a dinner at her home. From Mark and Mary's perspective, their relationship with the first Lao family which they helped resettle was unsatisfactory. They had limited, mostly task-specific contact with the family during the two years before the family moved to New Jersey. During the two years that the first Lao family lived in Lansing, a second family came as well. The women in the two families were sisters. Although Mark and Mary's church was involved in the sponsorship of the second Lao family, they themselves had no role in the sponsorship. However, they developed a more satisfying, more personal relationship with the second family. The following segment of conversation between Mark, Mary and the interviewer illustrates the task orientation. In this segment, Mark and Mary reflected on their relationship and activities with the second Lao family in whose resettlement they were involved: Figure 19. INTERVIEW SEGMENT: MARK AND MARY - TAPE 192-211 192 Interviewer: Tell me about your relationship with them. Mark: Chanthip and Khamdeng? 206 211 233 132 Interviewer: Um. Mark: Uh . . . see I ah you know we we felt very you know not vepy because we weren't what you'd call intimate friends but we felt like we were friends with them. ‘We we we were at their house at one point and we had them over. Mary: Umhum. Mark: An you know frequently we'd talk to them at church. Mary: And then they went to your parents' church in Kalamazoo. Mark : Right . Mary: And they were always so glad to see us. Mark: Yeah. Mary: (Inaudible). Mark: She was I mean you you probably know Khamdeng. Mary: She's very warm. Mark: She she's a very warm person and he is he is very warm. Interviewer: Umhum. Mark: They're easy to talk to and very out going and . . . I don't know just you didn't seem like there was a barrier there. Interviewer: Um. Mark: Whereas you know I always felt like there was something, that there was a gap [inaudible]. Interviewer: When you think about your relationships with them, what really stands out in your minds? Mark: With which? Interviewer: Both. . . . Let's say with the first family. Mark: I I guess the you know I I pretty much wrote what I'm going to say in the questionnaire, but, you know I was kind of surprised at the aloofness, you know the seeming lack of desire to really get into the culture to try to, you know, get things going and get organized and get started and and get a job and, you know, work your way up, that kind of thing. That that's kind of what I expected and I didn't really see that. More of a 'what's going to come to me?‘ kind of an attitude. That was a surprise to me I think, you know. 245 250 265 272 275 277 133 Mary: Yeah, see what we can get from. Mark: Yeah [laugh]. Mary: These rich Americans. They considered us rich Americans. Mark: Yeah. Interviewer: How did that make you feel? Mary: well . . . I guess I was surprised. In some ways it it's maybe understandable. Mark: I was. Mary: Because they. Mark: I was disappointed, I guess [inaudible]. Mary: I remember overbearing somebody at a women's conference talking about what a glorious experience it is to have refugees . . . , you know, sponsor refugees. How grateful they are and I thought, “That's not my experience at all.“ But, you know, they weren't talking to me, so, I thought, “well, you know, they're they're individual people. You can't expect all of the people from one nation to respond similarly. They've all got their own um backgrounds and their own expectations and I think [inaudible] they were expecting gravy after a a rough haul wherever they had been and they expected that this is their gravy train and when they came here everything was going to be rosy and easy.“ And, ah. Mark: And I think, yeah, ah . . . Chanthip and Khamdeng seemed to have just the opposite kind of reaction. You know, I ah I guess um psychologically. Mary: Real gratitude. Mark: Right, there's a lot, there was a lot of gratitude and a lot of, you know, “we really want [inaudible]“ you get a feeling of . . . ah positive feelings when you're helping somebody achieve, ok, when they're Interviewer: Umhum. Mark: when they're trying to do something and they're accomplishing something and you're you're helping them do that. And and that's what we saw happening in the case of Chanthip and Khamdeng. And in the other family it really wasn't like that. Interviewer provided information that Chanthip and Khamdeng had just purchased a house. The interviewer remarked that the house, although small, was very well kept. Mary: ‘well, she was such a neat house keeper too compared with her Sister. Interviewer: Oh, really. Mark: Yeah. Mary: Ohe Interviewer: Yeah. I've never met her sister. I've just heard about her. 134 Mary: Interesting to see the contrast and then that they were related. Interviewer: Yeah. Mary: So you really can't make generalizations about one nationality [inaudible] . . . being messier or even industrious versus, you know, lazy, kind of like. It just varies. Personalities were different. That's why racism stinks. Mary; Yeah. 290 Interviewer: Just to pick up on a couple of words again, if you had to describe your relationship with the second Lao family, what would those words be? Mark: Positive . . . rewarding . . . reciprocal. I guess those would be the three words I'd pick. 300 Interviewer: [inaudible] the first family was pretty well a one way thing? You were giving and they were taking? Mark: Yeah, yeah. 390 Mark and Mary reflected on their relationships with the Americans with whom they had sponsored refugees. They stated that their relationships with other Americans involved in the resettlement effort improved through the experience. But, of the people most involved in the resettlement, three (married couples) moved away. Two subsequently moved back for short periods of time. Another moved back still later. Mark and Mary reported a good relationship with a third married couple. Their relationship began through the refugee resettlement effort: however, they had 415 not discussed their involvement with refugees for some time. Mark and Mary are involved in activities which involve international students. One of their friends previously involved with refugees is now active in anti-abortion activities. Mary did not really get to know the woman or anyone in the first Lao family because she spent little time in face-to-face contact with them. This contact consisted of hosting the Lao family for dinner in her home and three or four visits to the Lao home. She had additional involvement in the Lao family's life through her children who attended the same school and had some of the same classes as the children of the Lao family. One of the difficult factors in relating to the Lao woman had to do With the Lao woman's almost total lack of facility in English and Mary's perception that she lacked interest in learning English. From 135 Mary's observations, the Lao woman had a core of Lao friends in Lansing and was able to accomplish all she needed to do in Lao. In terms of the potential for the development of a relationship between Mary and the Lao woman, lack of a common language presented a barrier which was not overcome (Tape 80-150). To illustrate the nature of her relations with the first Lao family, Mary related one incident regarding a visit to their home. An American friend had noticed mold on the walls of the building. Mary and the friend went to the Lao house to clean. A Lao friend of the Lao woman was there as well. She spoke some English and appeared to Mary to be very friendly toward her and her friend. However, the second Lao woman asked if Mary and her friend would come to her house to clean when they were through. From Mary's perspective, She had come to help and to perform a good deed. She did not appreciate being cast in a role in which hard physical work was simply expected of her. Mark's recollection of his relationship with and feelings for the first Lao man cannot be easily classified in the family or friend orientation categories. Mark stated his perception that the man had what he called a “command mentality“ (Tape 64). He had heard that the man was well thought Of in the Lansing refugee community. Mark thought that the man had a military background, which would account for his command mentality. Mark identified this mentality as problematic in the man's economic and social advancement in American society. “I don't think that was all providence [a Christian teaching defined as “the beneficent outworking of God's sovereignty whereby all events are directed and disposed to bring about those purposes of glory and good for which the universe was made,“ cameron, 1988. P. 541] because I think it inhibited 136 his ability to sort of start at the bottom and work his way up“ (Tape 67). Thus, neither Mark nor Mary enjoyed a happy relationship with the first family of Southeast Asian refugees in whose resettlement they participated. The designation pg§k_to describe the orientation exemplified by Mark and Mary is not intended to denote anything pejorative nor to indicate that any person manifesting a task orientation is devoid of compassion and friendliness to refugees nor that the Americans and refugees have nothing to do with each other after the initial phases of resettlement and acculturation. Rather, the term is intended to indicate that people with a task orientation sought first to accomplish the job of initial resettlement rather than to make friends or establish a familial relationship and then take care of whatever jobs need doing. Even though the segments quoted above from the interview with Mary and Mark indicate a task orientation, the same segments demonstrate their friendly disposition toward the refugees with whom they interacted, especially toward Chanthip and Khamdeng. AN OUTSIDER'S INTERPRETATION OF HOST SUBJECTS' EXPERIEI‘CES The American hosts interviewed and Observed for this research understood their relationships to Southeast Asian refugees in all sorts of ways. Four orientations were presented in the previous section to organize their statements. This section presents an interpretation of hosts' understandings of their relationships with refugees. What was it like to serve as an American host for such culturally different people? How did they understand their relationships? What contextual factors appear to have shaped their understandings? Answers to these and related questions appear below. 137 General Features of American Subjects' Relationships with Refugees Especially in the areas of physical culture and social structure, the American hosts had little in common culturally with the Southeast Asian refugees to whom they related. Because of this low degree of common culture, from the perspective of the hosts virtually everything in life had to be negotiated, with the negotiation done with a high degree of uncertainty as to the accuracy of communication between the hosts and the refugees. Involvement with Southeast Asians led to a variety of exposures and learnings on the part of the Americans. They were exposed to Lao, Hmong and‘Vietnamese foods which differed from their those in their usual diet. They encountered different smells in kitchens and throughout houses. They were exposed to different expectations as to the number of people which an apartment could hold. All of these experiences formed part of the Americans' entrance into a culturally different set of situations and social relations. In addition to the simple exposures and learnings discussed in the previous paragraph, the hosts' involvements with refugees led them into areas of their own society to which they had never been exposed or which they had left long before. With the exception of the Toledo group’which had decided that they would not place the sponsored refugees under public assistance, almost all of the other subjects had to learn to deal with state and federal governmental public assistance systems. Given their middle-income socio-economic status, the subjects had never had to deal with the public assistance system and the bureaucrats who make it run. Many of the subjects had probably never before had to deal with any bureaucrat from the weakness side of the power equation. Exceptions to 138 this generalization were Louise and Sheila who related almost exclusively to one Southeast Asian within the context of literacy tutorials. The sponsoring groups and some individual Americans, such as Patrick and Nancy, either dealt with landlords or, in the case of the group in the third Lansing church, purchased a house and played the role of landlord themselves. Uncertainty as a Feature of American Host/Refugee Stranger Relations The refugee-resettler relationship presented both parties with a complicated relational and communication framework within which important life issues, some involving simple survival, had to be negotiated. In large part neither side of the transaction was prepared for communicating about such important matters in so unfamiliar a context. Stein's (1981) assertion about refugees applies equally to the sponsoring hosts: . . . the refugee is searching his way through a strange and frightening society. The patterns of behavior that sustained life at home are no longer sufficient. The refugee is uncertain about how to mobilize his resources to succeed in his new home. (p. 328) With appropriate alterations, Stein's statement can be rewritten to state the situation of the sponsoring hosts: American hosts of refugees must search their way through a strange and potentially frightening situation. The patterns of behavior that sustain life in their ordinary relationships may not apply to their new relationships with refugees. The American hosts tend to be uncertain about how to mobilize their resources to relate to refugees and to help them succeed in their new home. The sections which follow deal with some of the areas of uncertainty which had to be negotiated for the American hosts to relate to Southeast Asian refugees. Practical problems encountered by the hosts. This research dealt with relationships between people with culturally different sets of expectations for appropriate behavior in virtually any social setting. 139 Maintaining relationships with culturally different refugees posed frequent practical problems for the American hosts. First, establishing and maintaining a relationship with refugee strangers, precisely because they were strange, interrupted and complicated the normal course of a host's life. Especially for those hosts with school age children, involvement with strangers presented problems of jealousy and resentment because time devoted to refugees' needs and concerns was forgone for spending with family members. The experience of Dan and Deborah illustrates this problem. At the time of the interview, Dan and Deborah had two teenage children, both adopted, and two young children, both of whom they were in the process of adopting. During the time period when they were heavily involved in resettling a‘Vietnamese refugee family, Dan and Deborah's family consisted of themselves, their two older children and various foster children for whom they cared in their home. One of the activities in which they engaged with the‘Vietnamese was attendance at the public worship service of Lansing Church I. They reported that their two older children resented having to sit through church worship services next to the Vietnamese family because the Vietnamese children did not behave in ways judged appropriate by the American children. Apparently the behavior, or perceived mis-behavior, of the Vietnamese children led to embarrassment on the part of the Dan and Deborah's children. Also, Dan and Deborah reported that, although they not done so for several years, they had previously attended several large Asian parties, such as city-wide New Year's celebrations. However, they never attended as a whole family because their two older children did not want to go (Tape 428+). The remarks by Dan and Deborah illustrate the assertion that 140 involvement with refugees can complicate the internal family lives of .American hosts. Second, in the interaction between the American subjects and the refugees little happens on schedule. At least from the hosts' point of view, the relationships were characterized by spontaneity rather than by planning and careful scheduling. The spontaneous character of the interaction between the American hosts and the refugees began with the arrival of the refugees which was reported to occur frequently with little warning. David and Dorothy gave an example illustrating how they had little advance warning of the arrival of a refugee family. At the time that the refugee family in question arrived, David and Dorothy were already part of a church committee in Ohio which was resettling two ethnic Lao families. An agent of one of the voluntary agencies asked the committee to sponsor another family. David told him that the committee would discuss the matter at its next meeting. On the day of the meeting the agent called the committee's chairperson and said that the family was already in California on its way to the committee's location. The family was a young married couple. The woman was pregnant and due to give birth shortly after arrival. They were accompanied by a fifteen year old minor who was claimed as a relative. The committee learned later that this claim was false. ‘While in a refugee camp in Thailand an uncle of the minor had paid the young couple to take the child with them to the United States. This child's situation presented a complicated legal as well as organizational problem to the committee. At the time of the child's arrival, the State of Ohio permitted no unaccompanied minors to enter the state nor did the state allow the adoption of unaccompanied Asian minors. 141 According to David and Dorothy, this policy of the State of Ohio originated as a solution to problems with Korean minors some years before. At that time, according to David and Dorothy, when Korean children came for adoption their Korean parents tended to appear later presenting the government with difficult resident alien and citizenship questions. Thus, the United States government refused to allow the adoption of unaccompanied Asian minors. The Lao couple did not want responsibility for the child who accompanied them. David and Dorothy took legal responsibility for him until he was eighteen years old. In the interview they stated that they had since used the word adoption to describe their relationship with this person, even though they did not proceed through the steps of a legal adoption. They stated that adoption was the only word to describe the relationship which they wanted to have with this boy. At the time of the interview the adopted child was twenty years old. (FN 6-18-86, min. 9+) This spontaneous character Of the interaction describes as well the way in which Patrick became involved with Southeast Asian refugees. He had been a member of the first Lansing church which had sponsored several ‘Vietnamese and Lao refugees: however, he had no involvement in the sponsorships. Although he stated twice that he had had something of a guilty conscience for his lack of involvement (FN 5-26-86, min. 29-30). his actual involvement began when a man who was very active with refugees asked him to help him intervene in a fight between a mother and her daughter. The man's strategy was to work toward reconciliation with himself dealing with the mother and Patrick dealing with the daughter. Patrick agreed to this proposal and began a series of activities leading to his extensive relationships in refugee groups at the time of the 142 interview. The point to be observed is that the sequence of involvements and relationships began spontaneously and abruptly. Third, in relating to Southeast Asian refugees the American hosts had to learn a range of attitudes and skills. One of these skills required learning to communicate without a standard English vocabulary and syntax. At the time of the interviews, none of the subjects had become fluent in a Southeast Asian language. NOne reported that they were actively seeking to learn to speak such a language. On the background questionnaire, Henry alone reported that he had learned pppp of a Southeast Asian language. Janice reported that at one point She did take six weeks of a‘Vietnamese language class to learn basic phrases. However, by the time of the interview, she no longer remembered any Vietnamese except for how to introduce herself. The remainder of the Americans reported that they had learned only a word of two or nothing in a Southeast Asian language. The distribution of their responses appears in Figure 20: 143 Figure 20. SUBJECI'S' RESPONSES TO BACKGROUND QUESTIONNAIRE QUERY REGARDING FLUENCY IN SOUTHEAST ASIAN LANGUAGES WOrd or Two None 1. Amy 1. Alan 17. Louise 2. Dan 2. Alvin 18. Mary 3. Deborah 3. Ann 19. Norma 4. Dorothy 4. Barbara 20. Ronald 5. Elizabeth 5. Bill 21. Sandra 6. George 6. Chuck 22. Tammy 7. Joan 7. Cindy 23. Thomas 8. John 8. David 9. Judy 9. Edward 10. Lisa 10. Eugene 11. Mark 11. Helen 12. Nancy 12. James 13. Patrick 13. Janice 14. Sarah 14. Karen 15. Sheila 15. Kenneth 16. Walter 16. Leon The lack of language learning on the part Of the Americans would appear to be a limiting factor on the sorts of relationships which they could develop with Southeast Asian refugees. Even those who manifested familial and friendship orientations could not speak with a refugee to whom they related in the refugee's native language. Relationships on the periphery. The relationships with refugees which the Americans discussed can be seen as occupying spaces on the periphery, rather than at the center, of their thinking and lives. Even subjects with extensive and vital involvements with refugees rarely spoke of their relationships with refugees as occupying the central place in their lives or consciousness. This assertion might be expected with respect to people expressing themselves in task or client orientations. However, the assertion can be defended with reference to people with a friend orientation as well. Patrick, an exemplar of the friend orientation, spoke about and was observed spending a great deal of time in direct contact with refugees. 144 At the time of the interview, he reported spending about ten hours per week with Southeast Asians (Background Questionnaire). At various times he recalled spending up to 40 hours in such interaction. Several of the ten hours were devoted to teaching Bible classes on Sunday mornings and one week night. He also drove for a church-sponsored children's program similar to the Boy and Girl Scouts on another week night. He also reported trying to find clothing and home furnishings for needy refugees. However, he made a more global statement as well, “I try to know all the Lao people in Lansing“ (Background Questionnaire). As was indicated in Figure 10, Patrick was present at all three of the observations of groups of subjects in face-to-face interaction with refugees. Figure 10 was not designed to indicate numerous other observations of Patrick in direct interaction with refugees at Christian church worship services and in their homes. However, Patrick reported that he related to Asians “primarily alone, though my spouse does have Asian involvement.“ He attend the three events identified in Figure 10 alone. NOthing in the interview or various less formal conversations with Patrick indicated that his spouse had involvements with Asians on her own or as an integral part of his relationships. A backyard barbecue on the night of the interview provided an example of Patrick's spouse's involvement with Asians. This event was attended by several Americans and by a Cambodian man who had been living in Lansing for three months. Patrick had become acquainted with this man through a Hmong family which occupied the apartment below that of the cambodians. Patrick had had long, frequent and important contacts with the Hmong family. Also, the Hmong family belonged to the same Christian 145 church as Patrick. The Hmong family had told Patrick that the Cambodian family's sponsor had moved from Lansing, leaving the family with no American contacts. Patrick had visited the Cambodians and had invited the family to his home. During the evening, Patrick directed his attention to the Cambodian man. This is not to say that he ignored his other guests. It is to say that conversations with other guests were structured to include the Cambodian man. The point to be observed here is that, although Patrick's Spouse was present at, and in fact co-hosted, the event, she had no necessary participation in the life of the Cambodian man and his family. It must be added that at least four Southeast Asian refugee youths had lived with Patrick and his wife during summers when Patrick's job took his family away from Lansing to a resort community (FN, 5-26-86, min. 50). The many small service-oriented businesses in this community provided abundant opportunities for seasonal, unskilled employment for refugee youths. Patrick's pattern of structuring his relations with refugees can be seen as a bracketing of the involvement to an important but peripheral part of his life. The issue here does not have to do with time expended but rather with the degree to which the involvement with the refugees was integrated with other relationships. Patrick thought about Southeast Asians a great deal. He devoted much time to face-to-face interaction with them. However, the evidence can be understood to indicate that his family and job were maintained as separate areas of life to be brought into contact with refugees only occasionally. A different strategy is represented by David and Dorothy, who had taken refugee youths into their family. Throughout the interview, their talk had to do almost exclusively with their involvement with refugees. 146 However, their responses on the background questionnaire reported that Dorothy could understand only a word or two and David none of any Asian language. Because of this lack of language facility, their relating to Asians happened in their cultural sphere or with them at the periphery of the sphere of the Asians as in their attendance at a conversation in Lao at which they would be present but could understand almost nothing. Eugene and Karen offer a somewhat different example. Of all the subjects, they alone lived near the homes of several Southeast Asian . refugees and in the area of Lansing occupied by many refugees in the late 1970's when the refugee community was quite large. By the time of the interviews, secondary migration away from Lansing and upwardly mobile moves to more desirable parts of the city had drained the downtown area of the city of large numbers of Asian people. In summary, it can be argued that Patrick, David and Dorothy, and Eugene and Karen had developed meaningful, long-term relationships with Southeast Asian refugees. All of these Americans related to many refugees and talked about a multiplicity of situations in which they interacted: parties, home visits, religious functions, medical offices and hospitals, and in government offices. However, even Patrick tended to deal with refugees at the periphery of his life with important other areas having only occasional refugee presence. Further, several of the subjects appeared to have developed strategies for managing the complicating factors which their involvement with refugees presented to their family and work lives. At least two such strategies required the hosts either to make the strangers an organic part of their life or lives, or to bracket part of their life for 147 interactions with strangers while living a largely separate life with family, friends, co-workers and neighbors. Summary Of uncertainty factors. In order to establish any sort of relationship with a refugee the hosts had to negotiate a whole range of culturally-shaped matters. In the domain of occupations, they had to deal with the meanings of job classifications, such as accountant, which they learned did not have precisely the same meaning in American culture as they did in that of the refugee's home culture. From the host's perspective, presenting a refugee to a potential American employer as an accountant when in American business culture the person's skills would qualify him or her as a bookkeeper or clerk, opened the American to considerable embarrassment. Another example can be given from the domain of religion. ‘With the exception of two Baha'is (Karen and Karl), all of the host subjects identified themselves as Christian people. Almost all of the refugees with whom they interacted adhered to a different religion, at least at the time of their initial involvement with Americans. The lone exception to this was that of Elizabeth and her family. These people were United Methodists. The first refugee family they helped resettled belonged to the Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination. Their second experience with refugees had to do with two young Chinese sisters who were Buddhist. Contrary to their expectations, the perspective of this family, their relationship went much more smoothly with the Buddhists. Classification of the Kind of Group‘Which These Subjects Form Although the subjects interviewed for this research were selected and analyzed as individual people or as married couples, their interactions with refugees occurred more in groups than was assumed in 148 the research design. In terms of the primary research question, the subjects spoke of their relations with refugees in terms of groups composed of other Americans more than was anticipated at the start of the project. Therefore, the interviewing process did not inquire as much as it could have into the sort of group or groups in which the subjects saw themselves. The interviews also did not investigate the meaning which group membership had for the subjects. The following section offers observations based on the limited evidence available toward an understanding of the groups of which the hosts were part. Organizations as Initiators and Sustainers The relationships in which the subjects lived did not begin by accident. They were begun and sustained by institutions, especially by Christian churches and organizations. This phenomenon may have been a function of the process used to recruit subjects (see Figure 11). The recruitment strategy used contact people in churches to identify potential subjects. However, observations in Lao, Hmong, Vietnamese and Cambodian refugee homes indicated that few other Americans were involved in the refugees' lives. Eugene, Karen and some of their fellow Baha'is were exceptions to this assertion. The phenomenon may also be the product of the sponsorship process through which the refugees gained entrance to the United States. Of the eleven main voluntary agencies that participated in programs to resettle refugees for 1986, five were Christian, one was Jewish, one was Buddhist and four did not have a religious identification (U.S. Committee for Refugees, 1987, p.74). Two Christian organizations, Migration and Refugee Services of the United States Catholic Conference and the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, were especially active in the Lansing area. 149 It may be the case that the process Of recruitment led to people who participated in Christian churches and organizations and that a different process would have found a different set of American hosts of refugees. It is the case that formal organizations were instrumental in bringing Southeast refugees to Lansing and in linking the refugees with sponsors. Further, Christian churches and the Baha'i group in Lansing sustained the links by providing organizational frameworks within which subjects and refugees and the relationships which developed between them existed. In their interactions with refugees the American hosts acted independently but not in isolation. They knew one another, saw one another at public gatherings, and exchanged information. They acted within a loosely coupled, informal network bound by personal relationships and altruistic caring rather than by institutionalized organizational bonds. However, they tended to see each other only in chance encounters, such as the evening gathering in the home of the New family following the death of Mr. New. Thus, they developed no formal organizational structure. One way in which the subjects can be seen as acting and relating as groups can be seen in Figure 21, which arranges subjects' names in terms of their involvement in sponsorship: Figure 150 21. GROUPINGS OF SUBJECTS IN TERMS OF SPONSORSHIP TOLEDO GROUP - Sponsored refugees as a group LANSING S LANSING S S S LANSING UJCDUJCDU) Barbara Bill Chuck Cindy Leon Lisa walter CHURCH l -- Some group sponsorships, but individual sponsorships also Allan Amy Dan Deborah Joan John Patrick CHURCH 2 -- Sponsored refugees as a group James Judy Sarah CHURCH 3 - Sponsored refugees as a group Edward George Henry Kenneth Mark Mary Thomas Tammy SUBJECTS INVOLVED IN SPONSORSHIPS THROUGH C(MMI‘I'I'EES OF OTHER CHURCHES ALL IN THE LANSING, MI AREA moat/1mm (DU) Alvin Ann Dorothy David Elizabeth Karl (Elizabeth's husband -- involved in home sponsorship through his spouse) Ronald Janice 151 Figure 21. GROUPINGS OF SUBJECTS IN TERMS OF SPONSORSHIP (continued) INVOLVEMENTS WITH REFUGEES INDIVIDUALLY Eugene (involved through job) Karen (involved initially through husband's job) Louise (involved through literacy training program - church tie) Sheila (involved through literacy training program - church tie) Nancy Helen Sandra Norma (DU)!!! Those subjects who began their involvement with refugees as a member of a sponsoring committee did not give evidence that they developed much by way of warm friendships and long-term relationships. ‘walter in Toledo offers a discrepant case. He began his involvement with refugees as part of a committee. However, the Lao refugee family sponsored by his church did live in his home for their first three days in the United States. He viewed this experience as a bonding one between himself and the Lao family. He stated, “I still [feel] close to this family“ (FN 7-19-86, min. 4). At the time of the interview he had left the church through which the family was sponsored. Facilitating and Hindering Factors The third subsidiary question inquired as to factors which appear to facilitate and which appear to hinder the development of long-term relationships between hosts and refugees. The research was not designed to measure the weight of the various factors in facilitating or hindering the development of relationships. To avoid giving the impression that weight is represented in the order of presentation, the factors are listed below in alphabetical order. 152 Facilitating factors. Two factors of the situation of the American subjects facilitated the development of long-term relationships. These same factors may have contributed to decisions to become involved with refugees, especially in sponsorship relations, in the first place. First, movement around the areas of Lansing and Toledo by private automobile presented little difficulty in comparison with the time demanded for trips of similar distances in larger metropolitan areas. Therefore, hosts could visit the refugees more frequently than if they had been more widely dispersed in a larger urban area and if the degree . of traffic congestion had been higher. Second, economic and geographic circumstances Of the hosts' lives permitted a level of involvement with refugees which may not have been possible for other sets of hosts. Their circumstances included a comfortable level of income and ease of transportation provided by private cars. Although the hosts led very busy lives, a large number of them held jobs which permitted more flexible time management structures than would have been possible with more scheduled employment. Hindering factors. From the perspective of the American subjects, four sets of factors hindered the development of long-term relationships between themselves and Southeast Asian refugees. Hindering factor: Culturaly especially language differences. Because the relationships under consideration involved people with culturally different sets of expectations for appropriate behavior in virtually any social setting, maintaining relationships with cultural strangers posed frequent practical problems for the American hosts. They simply did not know the culturally appropriate action to take in a variety of settings. This lack of cultural knowledge resulted in 153 feelings which can be characterized by the word uncertainty. This uncertainty can be seen in Dan and Deborah's confusion as to whether they had offended anyone unknowingly in not accepting invitations to parties in refugees' homes, invitations which they knew other Americans had accepted. Figure 22. INTERVIEW SEGMENT: DAN AND DEBORAH - TAPE 428-442 Dan: . . . got invited to Titi's wedding . . . Deborah: Yeah, sort of the reception . . . that was Thang's daughter, oldest daughter. Dan: ‘we, we, and we've been to a few of the . . . either the New Year's parties or . . . I'm not sure what all of the other occasions were. Um, downtown . . . when the big groups got together. So, you know, we made the rounds there, it hasn't been, it's been a few years now, though, since we've been to one, hasn't it? . . . Ah, even when Thu and Flora go, they don't necessarily invite us anymore. Deborah: They don't go. [Barely audible remarks during next statement by husband]. Dan: They go to 'em once in a while. Remember, they came that one day and their car was acting up so they had to take our car. . . . But, you know, that was never with our whole family. That was mostly just you and I and sometimes the girls [two young eventually adopted sisters]. The big kids never really . . . Deborah: Hey, now we were invited Dan: [inaudible]. Deborah: to many Of the Lao Dan: Oh, in in the homes Deborah: weddings and Lao New Year, that kind of thing that we did not go to. It was sort of a general Dan: Um, oh. Deborah: announcement kind of thing where Dan: Yeah. Deborah: most of the people that helped them*went. And . . . we might even have offended somebody unknowingly by not coming . . . but Dan: Yeah, I always wondered about that, if you are invited once and you don't come once, is that when the invitations cease? Deborah: but I think Dan: Or what? I don't know. Deborah: [inaudible] if maybe maybe it needs to be said . . . we were we had so much to deal with. we were we had foster kids coming in and out of our home. . . . And there [exhales loudly] we had [exhales a bit more softly] some real big heavy things that that were going on right here within these walls. 154 A reach out, if you will, or ministry to the foster kids and back then, uh, let's see, we had Jack, a very difficult boy. Because none of the subjects had learned more than a few words of any of the refugees' home languages, language itself presented a formidable barrier to the development of anything other than activity and relationships in which the refugees played the role of client and the hosts the role of patron. The word uncertainty can be used to sum up the feelings of the American hosts. Language is a crucial social skill which they had not learned. Therefore, within any sort of relationship established between themselves and refugees a large measure of uncertainty existed. This uncertainty extended from doubts as to what was really happening in the refugees' lives to problems presented by their own lack of self-confidence in what they were doing. The intense feeling on the American side of the language barrier was illustrated by George. During the telephone call made to arrange an interview appointment, George doubted that he would make a good interview subject because he regarded language as a real barrier between himself and the refugees. He added, “I've gotten used to it.“ Now he feels more at ease: “It doesn't unnerve me as it used to“ (FN 6-7-86). In the interview itself George identified himself as a person who gets embarrassed easily when he does not understand what is happening. At the beginning of his association with the Lao family to which he related as a member of a sponsoring committee, he felt unsure of himself, and lacking in self-confidence in dealing with the refugees. He stated, “I probably embarrass easily when I don't understand. . . . When there is that language barrier, I am embarrassed to admit it“ (FN 6-16-86, min. 31). George reported that over time his embarrassment had decreased and 155 his self-confidence increased as the refugees' facility in English improved. “Probably the biggest barrier for me is language. . . . as their English has increased, my embarrassment has decreased“ (FN 6-16-86, min. 31+). The word uncertainty describes a common feeling of the Americans in communicating with the refugees. However, because none of the American subjects of this research learned to communicate in a Southeast Asian language beyond a few words, strategies other than direct conversation had to be pursued for the Americans and refugees to communicate with each other. One strategy reported by the subjects was to locate one or two refugees with whom they could communicate and then to channel all communications through that person or those people. This way of communicating can be termed a third party strategy because the two communicating persons did so through a third party. In some cases, this third party was a child of refugee parents. Kenneth offered an example of using a third party strategy to communicate with the family sponsored by the church committee of which he was a member. In his dealings with the refugee family, Kenneth stated that he tended to speak with a particular Lao woman because her facility in English was superior to that of the other people in the group (FN 7-8-86, min. 2). He also communicated through the daughter of the Lao family which lived next to the sponsored family because she was able to translate between the English and Lao speakers. Kenneth remarked that the talk usually concerned the business aspects of resettlement (FN 7-8-86, min. 13). The Lao family used the same tactic. ‘When he received a telephone call from them, the voice on the other end of the telephone was often that of the neighbor girl (FN 7-8-86, min. 15). 156 Hindering factor: Gender-related problems. Even the most industrious of hosts ran into relational problems. In an interview with Elizabeth attended by her husband and child, she attributed one source of numerous difficulties which she and her sponsor group experienced with “her [Vietnamese] family“ to the group's use of women, particularly herself and another woman, to handle most of the face-to-face contact with the Vietnamese man. Their services involved transporting the man and his family and facilitating contacts with medical care providers, social service personnel, potential employers and landlords. Elizabeth and her husband suspected that the Vietnamese man resented having to deal with women. As an example of the cross-gender problem, Elizabeth told a story about the Vietnamese man's reaction to failing his first driving test. By Elizabeth's account, the man blamed his failure on his having been trained by her, a woman. After failing the first test, he hired a male professional driving teacher. ‘When he submitted to a second test, he passed. The identification of this problem elsewhere was mentioned in the second chapter. In a study of‘Vietnamese assimilation in Denver, Sweeney (1980) reported that‘Vietnamese people in Denver were surprised that a major resettlement effort would be headed by a woman, especially one affiliated with the male-priest-dominated Roman Catholic Church. Hindering factor: Lack of time. All of the American subjects held jobs which placed great demands on their time or were married to spouses who held such jobs. Although they had flexible schedules which enabled at least some involvement with refugees, the subjects' employment situations left them with little time for the sort of extended 157 conversations which at least some of them judged essential to the establishment and nurturing of relationships with refugees. Because the development of any relationship takes time, the amount of time available to develop a relationship with a Southeast Asian refugee is a significant factor in the potential for success in such relationships. The severe language and cultural differences between the American subjects and Southeast Asian refugees made this time factor even more critical. GROUNDED THEORY OF ACQUIRED INTERCULTURAL IDENTITY The purpose of this section is to present a grounded theory based on the findings of the research. The theory developed below has been termed a grounded theory of acquired intercultural identity. Statement of the Theory The term intercultural identity has been adapted from the concept of occupational identity developed by Finnan in her study of how‘Vietnamese refugees became acculturated to new jobs in the electronics industry on the west coast Of the United States. Finnan asserts: Since few refugees were electronics technicians in Vietnam, they had to learn to identify with the job. Occupational identity development describes a cognitive process of molding an image of self to fit a role, while also molding an image of the role to fit one's self-image. Occupational identity can be defined as a response to and influence on a social role, usually in the world of work. This definition includes two important components. RESPONSE '10 describes how a person molds his/her self-image to fit the role. INFLUENCE ON describes how a person shapes an image of the role to complement his/her self-image. (1982, pp. 163-164) Even as a refugee's socialization or acculturation to a new job in a culturally different setting involves the arrival at a new understanding or redefinition of the refugee's self, so too their hosts can come to understand the meaning of a relationship with them in terms 158 understandable and important to the hosts. The theory of acquired intercultural identity holds that host-refugee relationships endure and become meaningful to the hosts as the hosts acquire an intercultural identity. This term conveys the idea that, as part of the development and sustenance of long-term relationships with refugees, several subjects acquired an identity by which they interpreted their experiences with refugees and with which they presented themselves both to refugees and to other Americans. In addition to learning or honing skills and acquiring attitudes, some of the Americans learned to find or adopt ways of defining themselves over against the refugees to whom they related. This definition of themselves, or the acquisition of an intercultural identity, served as the basis for on-going relationships with culturally different Southeast Asian refugees. The theory holds that an important component of enduring intercultural relationships from the host side of the host-refugee interaction involves the host's definition of the relationship in terms that the host finds meaningful. In contrast to the development of intercultural identity suggested above, if a host is unclear as to the meaning of the relationship or if the relationship is viewed strictly in terms of the technical task of helping a newly-arrived refugee get settled, the relationship will endure only so long as the host has specific tasks to do or until the host grows weary and withdraws from the relationship. To prevent misunderstanding, it is important to state that no morally-adverse criticism is intended against those hosts who do not develop long-term.relationships with the refugees whom they sponsor or come to know in another way. NOr is adverse criticism directed toward those who grow weary and withdraw from 159 contact with refugees, or who in any other way do not find meaning for themselves in relations with refugees. The theory of acquired intercultural identity is intended to describe a way in which some hosts in the set of subjects of this research came to understand their long-term relationships with refugees. It may be the case that such an identity is crucial to the development and maintenance of long-term relationships with any people who are culturally different. Components of a Grounded Theory of Acquired Intercultural Identity The grounded theory of acquired intercultural identity holds that host-refugee relationships can endure and become meaningful to the hosts as the hosts establish an identity for themselves over against the culturally other. Such a theory has several components, each of which appears in Figure 23: Figure 23. COMPONENTS OF A GROUNDED THEORY OF ACQUIRED INTERCULTURAL IDENTITY Definition of the other Definition of the self in relation to the other Definition of the relationship The components of the theory will be discussed in turn. Definition Of the other and of the self in relation to the other. A key factor in the establishment of intercultural identity on the part of some of the sponsors appears to be the establishment of a satisfying and understandable relationship with at least one refugee in terms which the host can understand and incorporate into the remainder of his or her life. Patrick presents a case in which the development of an enduring relationship with one Lao person and her family served as a bridge to a 160 vast number of other relations and relationships. His involvement with this Lao person began when an American member of his church asked him to assist resettling a Lao family in which the mother and a daughter were disagreeing strenuously with one another. Patrick was asked to help resettle the daughter. Eventually he became well acquainted with the mother as well, a relationship which was enhanced when the other American moved from the area. Over the decade that Patrick knew this family, he developed a variety of relationships with many other Lao, Hmong, Vietnamese and Cambodian refugee families. It may be the case that his previous interest in different nations and their cultures and his marriage to a woman who spent her early life in Europe may have prepared him for the engagement with the first refugee. The theory of acquired intercultural identity suggests that Patrick's extensive involvements with refugees were facilitated by an initial satisfying relationship which enabled him to define himself and his role over against culturally-different people. Definition of the relationship. In terms of defining the relationship, the key task for the host is location or creation of a category into which to place the relationship and the activities attendant upon it. Within the subject set, various options were chosen. Eighty-eight year old Ronald thought of his role as a grandparent to the much younger refugees whom he helped sponsor. David and his wife Dorothy served as adoptive parents. Karl began as a business manager who hired and supervised refugee workers and turned this relationship into a set of friendships. These cases illustrate ways in which various subjects came to define their relationships with refugees by analogy to relationships they shared with people of their own cultural group. 161 Hypothetical Statement of the Theory The theory of acquired intercultural identity can be stated as a hypothesis for testing by quantitative methodology. The following statement, when placed in null form, can serve such a purpose. Figure 24. HYPOTHE'TICAL STATEMENT OF THE THEORY OF ACQUIRED INTERCULTURAL IDENTITY Context: A set of voluntary helping relationships between cultural hosts and cultural strangers. Hypothesis: The following variables correlate positively with a host's acquisition of an intercultural identity: A. Meaningfulness of the relationship to the host, or, the host's personal satisfaction with the host-stranger relations. B. The endurance of at least one intercultural relationship for longer than one year. A related hypothesis can be suggested as well: a host's personal satisfaction within relationships between cultural hosts and strangers is maximized when the host acquires an identity within the host-stranger transaction. CONCLUSION Maintaining a long-term relationship on the part of an American host with a Southeast Asian refugees is facilitated by placing the relationship into the rest of a host's life. This placement has been presented as a grounded theory of acquired intercultural identity. It can be suggested that intercultural relationships will tend to endure longer if they become meaningful to both parties. As an initial position, related directly to the experiences reported by the subjects interviewed for this research, it can be held that acquisition of an intercultural identity serves as a key element in the development and 162 maintenance of long-term relationships by American hosts with culturally-different Southeast Asian refugees. CHAPTER‘V CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUMMARY The purpose of this fieldwork research was to describe and interpret the experience of Americans who had entered voluntary helping relationships with Southeast Asian refugees. The previous chapter presented assertions and supporting warrants which argue that at least four orientations toward the culturally different refugees can be seen in the interview remarks of various American subjects. These orientations were termed task, client, friend and family orientations. A grounded theory of intercultural identity formation was developed as well. This chapter presents conclusions regarding the findings for an understanding of intercultural relations involving hosts and culturally different strangers, recommendations for further research, and recommendations for training programs for Americans involved in refugee resettlement. The chapter closes with a brief summary. This research presents only a partial View of how hosts viewed their relationships with strangers. It deals only with those hosts interested enough in their relationships to sit through an interview. In several cases the project drew in only those people who were still with the VOLAG and who took the initiative in telephoning to arrange for an interview. The study did not take into account the perspectives and experiences of all the people who sponsored Southeast Asian refugees during the first wave of refugee flight in the late 1970's and neither saw nor thought much about the refugees with whom they dealt since then. 163 164 Also, this study dealt only with hosts in their own society. Unlike tourism research which has tried to develop knowledge and theory about host societies in general, this research set out deliberately to investigate just those people who reached out to strangers. The American hosts of refugees who were subjects of this research served as interpreters of a host culture to newly arrived strangers. They related to cultural strangers and, in some cases, developed long-term relationships with them. To accomplish many Of their tasks, the hosts had to learn new information and skills within their own cultural setting. In particular they had to learn how to operate with the social service system of the United States. The hosts also acted as buffers for emotional and cultural conflicts between host and refugee cultures. From humanitarian as well as from scholarly perspectives the American hosts interviewed for this research provided a rich set of subjects for the study of intercultural relations. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions set forth inferences drawn from the evidence and analysis presented in chapter four. Subjects Function in a Group Setting The findings indicate that the subjects functioned in more of a group setting than was anticipated in the research design. This phenomenon tended to be significant in terms of the subjects' understanding of the relationship with refugees. The Americans saw their relationships with Southeast Asian refugees within the context of their relationships with other Americans. This concern for group identity does not claim that the subjects did not think and act independently. It does claim that a group orientation 165 appeared to shape the subjects' understandings Of their relationships with Southeast Asian refuges. Further research would do well to examine the subject set for group identity before the start of interviewing. Relationships Tend to Remain at the Acquaintance Level Human relationships can be regarded as ranging from acquaintance to friendly-acquaintance to close friend. Although the full extent of this range was found among the Americans interviewed for this study, most relationships remained at the acquaintance level. A few moved to a category which can be termed friendly-acquaintance with still fewer establishing friendships with the refugees whom they sponsored or to whom they related. The process of establishing durable friendships, or a least friendly acquaintanceships, was complicated by secondary migration of refugees. Those Americans who did establish relationships which can be termed friendship tended to start with a close relationship with one person. Therefore, it seems that if one wants to move toward friendship with Southeast Asian refugees, one ought to start by making one friend. This goal can be difficult to achieve in situations in which the American rarely gets into the company of more than one refugee family because a single family presents such a small set of potential friends. Participation in a church or other social group which includes more Asians enables one to seek out a friend rather than relate to the only potential friend available. Some sponsors reported a sense of emptiness in their relationship with refugees. They expressed a desire to discuss certain topics with the Southeast Asian refugees to whom they related, but felt discomfort at doing so. For example, Leon and Lisa expressed these concerns in terms 166 of the way in which they wished to deal with friends from their own ethnic and cultural group. Leon expressed regrets that he never felt a spiritual relationship with the Lao family he came to know (FN 7-19-86, 45 min.). Lisa referred to the Lao woman in the family which she and Leon had resettled as a “very dear friend“ (FN 7-19-86, 1 min.) and when asked for a word or sentence describing the relationship which she shared with the Lao woman, Lisa used the word “friends“ (FN 7-19-86, 32 min.). However, she added immediately that the woman's busy job schedule prevented her from taking the Lao woman out for lunch and shopping as was Lisa's custom‘with her American friends. Perhaps the Americans who felt this way wanted to fit the refugees into their lives and realized intuitively that accomplishment Of this desire was seldom possible. All of the Americans subjects who had a direct role in sponsorship spoke a great deal about activity or work in connection with their involvement with refugees. Providing transportation, finding housing, helping enroll children in school, and the like constituted the main topics of conversation between Americans and refugees and were the Americans' primary means of relating to these people. One subject remarked that he regarded this task-specific way of relating as an inhibiting factor on the establishment of relationships. This observation carries no criticism of the Americans. The refugees came to the United States to establish new homes for themselves and their families, not primarily to make friends with Americans. However, if the refugees are to establish links with mainstream‘white American society, friendships with Americans will be helpful to them. From the standpoint of the Americans, intercultural friendships with Asians constitute one way in which they can broaden their understandings of other peoples and 167 cultures. Such relationships may reduce the amount and degree of racial and ethnic stereotyping and prejudice in American society. A very common way for churches and other religious and community organizations to deal with refugees is through committees. Such committees or similar bureaucratic structures served as the initial way of involvement for 22 subjects. The subjects may have found it difficult to break out of these formalized relationships to more personal ones. The committee structure had several consequences for the subjects of this research. For example, although the research was not designed to prove anything in a positivist sense, it is striking that those people who began their relationship with refugees in a committee setting spoke little about what they understood as warm friendships with refugees. In the To1edo situation, an intensification of relationships occurred within the American group. Interactions of Americans with refugees tended to consist of specific responses to various needs. The committee structure drew the Americans into deeper relationships with other Americans and, possibly because of the time commitments required by committee participation, reduced the amount of time available and motivation for development of relationships with refugees. Despite the intense group efforts which constituted the refugee resettlement experience of the hosts who sponsored in committees, the hosts do not appear to have spent much group time talking about their developing relationships with refugees; about the cultural, historical and personal nature of the refugees to whom they related: or about the impact of the relations with refugees on their own lives. EVidence drawn from interviews with the hosts indicates that their committee discussions were taken up with talk of the details of resettlement: for example, “Who will drive so-and-so 168 to the doctor next week?“ and “What can we do about the problem which a certain refugee child is having in school?“ It can be suggested that the efforts of the committees as well as of the individual people could have been strengthened, extended and generally enhanced if conversations had been arranged to discuss the feelings of hosts about refugees and their resettlement, to share stories about their interactions with refugees, and to explore the meaning of relating to refugees for their own lives. For those hosts who did not participate in committees, such conversations could have been helpful as well. The process envisioned here proceeds from an understanding of the importance of communication for the initiation and strengthening of group ties. Singer speaks of this process as follows: If people do not communicate with one another, they don't know that there are others out there who feel much the same about many aspects of the world as they do. Unless they communicate they cannot become a group. (1987, p. 39) The communication envisioned by Singer with its accompanying group activity can be facilitated by drawing together hosts who related to Southeast Asian refugees for reflection on their intercultural experiences. Such reflection can be enhanced by the introduction of cognitive knowledge about the history and cultural aspects of refugee groups. However, the emphasis should fall on the presentation and discussion of the sort of experiences which the hosts have been having. Implication of Sponsor Role Beginning involvement with Southeast Asian refugees as a formal sponsor does not appear to offer a promising way toward long-term relationships. Sponsorship tends to take too much work, or at least the people interviewed for this research made too much work of it. For example, the Toledo group decided to fund from their own resources the 169 resettlement of a Lao refugee family. They could have decided to place the Lao family on welfare. Such a decision and resulting procedure would have eased the financial burden on them. The group in the Third Lansing Church did not have to make the down payment on a house for the Lao family which they initially resettled. They could have sought public housing or a private rental. The sponsorship agreement did not require them to assume the role of landlord. This role complicated their early involvement with the refugee family which they resettled. Negotiating the Relationship into the Remainder of a Host's Life '- For the subjects of this research, maintaining a long-term relationship on the part Of an American host with a Southeast Asian refugee was facilitated by finding a place in the host's life into which the relationship could be located. During the interviews, the subjects presented at least four possible placements: A. For single Louise this placement involved dealing intensely with one Chinese-Lao woman and with the woman's family. B. The interview with Patrick, supported by other subjects' remarks about him and observations, indicated that he had wide contacts throughout Lao and Hmong groups in Lansing. He also had several contacts among Cambodian and Vietnamese people in the same area. At least some of these contacts involved long-term relationships and some friendships. The placement of his relations and relationships with refugees meant some compartmentalization of the remainder of his life. He had a job which enabled him to take time off from work during winters: however, he reported little involvement with Asians on the part of his family. C. For David and Dorothy the placement meant taking refugees into their home as quasi-family members. In anthropological terms, these relationships can be termed fictive kinship. Because no interviews were conducted with their biological children, it is not possible to report on their experiences and feelings. D. For Eugene and Karen the placement meant living in the same neighborhood with Asians and maintaining relationships with those who moved away. Their relationships were enhanced by participation in a religious fellowship which included some of their Southeast Asian acquaintances. 170 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH This research found that there are people who establish long-term relationships with people who are culturally different. Other people were found who establish initial relations with those who are culturally different and then remain distant acquaintances or break off the relationship. Future studies of intercultural host-stranger relations can benefit from attention to the following suggestions. Suggestions for Redesign before Replicating If the study is replicated, two changes ought to be made in the procedures by which it was conducted: alteration of the questionnaire and interviewing married people together. These suggested changes will be discussed in turn. First, the questionnaire can be redesigned to produce a more sophisticated instrument. Two problems ought to be fixed in the questionnaire used in this study. The fpigpg_category does not fit well with the categories in the set. Because the questionnaire left.§ripng. undefined, a subject marking the category gpipng_may mean everything from a casual acquaintance to a life-long, intimate friend. A redesigned questionnaire could add categories (casual acquaintance, friend, close friend) or add a definition of what the term means. Also, the designation refugees legal sponsor ought to have read refugees formal pppnsor because sponsorship implies no legal or financial liability nor financial responsibility for the sponsor. The subject named Dan pointed out this fact on his questionnaire. Attention to these two problems would render the questionnaire an even more useful tool to gather background information on the subjects and to provide a starting point for interviews. 171 A second suggested change in procedure has to do with the participants in the interviews. The interviews of two people married to one another tended to proceed more easily than the interviews in which the participants were limited to the researcher and the subject. This phenomenon can be seen in the text of the dissertation in terms of the overlapping turns-at-talk in quotations from several interviews. The married people conversing together enriched one another's remarks. If the study is replicated, small groups of subjects could be interviewed together. For example, Louise and Sheila were close friends and could have been interviewed together. The procedure of interviewing people together would reduce the level of confidentiality provided by individual interviews; however, it would provide the opportunity for subjects to enrich one another's comments and would reduce the number of interviews without reducing the number of subjects. variations of the Present Research The present research can be extended by studies examining variations on the primary research question. For example, one could ask, “How do other groups of intercultural hosts understand their relationships with other sets of strangers?“ Given this question, a number of comparative studies would be possible: Paid refugee resettlement professionals in government and voluntary agencies vs. the unpaid volunteers in this study. Foreign student advisors vs. the unpaid volunteers in this study. People who marry someone from a different cultural group vs. the people who participate in more casual relationships as were examined by this study. A second strategy would be to examine the same primary question, or its variations, but to vary the social context. For example, one could compare the situation in Michigan with situations with higher Southeast 172 Asian refugee populations, such as Orange County, california. The American subjects of this research constituted a majority racial and cultural group in their locations Does the different demographic configuration of Orange County lead to differences in the ways in which relations and relationships develop and the meaning which they have to cultural hosts? A third variation would be to replicate the study with hosts who deal with a set of different strangers. The hosts interviewed for this research had established relationships with a set of strangers who came to them out of extraordinary circumstances and often with extraordinary needs. Therefore, the relationships established may differ greatly from those which have been or can be established with other sets of strangers. First, as Zetter observes, although the term refugee presumes the probability of eventual voluntary repatriation, in our century such repatriation has happened only rarely. Rather, “The label indicates change in the normal structure and mechanisms of economic, social and cultural life - these are changes that, by their extreme nature often become pathological for refugees and their hosts“ (1988, p. 1). The following characteristics distinguish the set of strangers with whom the subjects of this research established relationships. First, the reasons for and conditions of their departure placed and continue to place Southeast Asian refugees on the border between voluntary and involuntary migrants. Even though no one physically forced them to leave their homes, by definition as refugees they did so out of fear. Therefore, their volunteerism differs qualitatively from that of career volunteers, such as international students, Peace corps personnel, military advisors and religious missionaries. 173 Second, with few exceptions refugees are in the United States to stay. Although they remain strangers by Simmel's definition, they are in a different tenure category than international students, Peace Corps personnel, military advisors and religious missionaries, all of whom, by definition, plan to return home. Although refugees who have spent time in a country Of first asylum, such as Lao refugees in Thailand, have on occasion been repatriated, the Southeast Asian refugees in the United States will almost certainly not leave. By now many have become and more are eligible to become United Stated citizens. Third, refugees stand out from other strangers because they vastly outnumber the isolated strangers in other categories. This makes refugees and refugee-related hosts interesting to study. It also provides opportunities to follow up this study with people from the same set of hosts in a few years. Fourth, the psychological and in some cases physical problems with which the refugees arrived distinguished them from other groups of strangers. Although Meinhardt, Tom, Tse and Yu did not examine Lao or Hmong people in their Asian Health Assessment Project in Santa Clara Cbunty, the results of their study indicate at least that high levels of need for mental health and general medical services existed in refugee communities in the United States in the general time-frame of this dissertation. Regarding the need for mental health services, the conclusions of this research team were displayed in Figure 5 (p. 50) and are reproduced below as Figure 25: 174 Figure 25. SOUTHEAST ASIAN REFUGEES' NEEDS FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES General Population 3.0% ian 17.5% Vietnamese 6.0% Chinese Refugee 4.2% (Meinhardt, Tom, Tse & Yu, 1984 p. 24) This chart indicates that the Southeast Asian refugees included in the study demonstrated need for mental health services at much higher levels than those of the general population. Although the issue of general health and its assessment is complicated, the same research team made similar conclusions as to the need by Southeast Asian refugees for general health care services (Meinhardt, Tom, Tse & Yu, 1984, p. 43 and pp. 30—44). These high levels of need for psychological and medical services may have contributed to the establishment of relationships based largely on the fulfillment of these needs. If such is the case, then the relationships established by similar sets of hosts with different sets of strangers may manifest major differences. Future studies can examine the understanding of intercultural relationships for hosts who relate to strangers with different sets of characteristics. A comparable group on the tenure issue would be permanent immigrants, such as Commonwealth citizens in England. A further variation on the primary research question can be suggested as well. In the background of this research lurked the general interpretive fieldwork question, “What happens in the lives of Americans when they serve as hosts for culturally different refugees?“ From the work done for this project, the following categories emerge as helpful in 175 conceptualizing a broader fieldwork study: 1. The activities in which the Americans engage with and on behalf of refugees. 2. Alterations in the Americans' interactions with their family members and with their Americans friends and acquaintances. 3. Many of the Americans will accomplish the sponsorship task of assisting in initial resettlement. It is important to state that no stigma is being placed on people who follow this pattern. 4. A few of the Americans established enduring relationshipS‘with culturally different refugees. Extensions of the Present Research In addition to replication of the present study and varying the primary research question, further research on intercultural host-stranger relations can be proposed based on the findings of the present research. Suggestions for such studies follow. Examine ways in which contact affects assimilation. Beyond varying the primary research question, potentially useful research could be done examining the ways in which contact with cultural hosts affects cultural assimilation of strangers. For example, one could study the range of difference which sustained interaction and relationship with intercultural hosts make to a cultural stranger's integration. Examine ways in which hosts compare with their peers. Finally, questions can be directed to the ways in which the behaviors: social relationships: and attitudes, values and beliefs of intercultural hosts compare with those of their cultural peers. Because so much of the research on cultures other than that of the researcher has focused on strangers living in the United States, one can question the validity of its findings as describing the cultures of the strangers. Perhaps neither strangers nor hosts are typical of their societies. 176 Longitudinal studies. Little, if any, study has been done on intercultural relations over time. A primary research question of such a study could ask: What happens within intercultural relationships involving hosts and strangers over time? If it can be assumed that some change in the relationships is likely to occur, another primary research question can be posed: (How) do intercultural relationships involving hosts and strangers change over time? Do the relationships pass through stages or phases? As a starting point for such research on changes in the relationships, one could explore whether the following phase sequence can help explain the changes: Figure 26. POSSIBLE PHASE SEQUENCE IN INTERCUDTURAL RELATIONSHIPS Phase 1: Initial contact Phase 2: Busy-ness Phase 3: ‘Withdrawal or intensification Phase 4: Shift to either a. ‘Withdrawal - intermittent contact. b. Progression to intense activity and a deeper relationship. A further question can be posed regarding the meaning which changes in intercultural relationships have for the hosts: Do the hosts' understanding of the relationships change in relation to specific life events in the life of the host and of the stranger? The refugee-sponsor situation in the United States provides a context within which the longitudinal studies suggested above could be done. 177 Features or factors distinguishing people who establish long-term relationships from those who do not. Future studies can examine with profit the question of what features or factors distinguish people who establish long-term relationships from.those who do not within a given set. This research investigated people who established helping relationships. However, within the subject set, Eugene and Karen fit on the fringe of this description in that they came into contact with refugees through Eugene's work. Subjects who fit into the familial orientation also fall on the fringe of people in a helping relationship with refugees because their involvement extended beyond formal or informal helping. Describe how salient communication difficulty is to the Americans. In the interviews, some of the subjects spoke about the difficulties they had in communicating with Southeast Asian refugees. How salient is communication difficulty to the American hosts? This question could serve as the primary research question for another project. Statistical validation of the four orientations. Future studies can pursue statistical validation of the four orientations. Such studies can proceed from the following five categories of questions: 1. How well can the theory of the four orientations be supported statistically? To accomplish this process, the orientations would have to be operationalized, followed by the development, administration and analysis of an instrument. 2. How adequate are the four orientations for accounting for the experience of American hosts of Southeast Asian refugees? Are there other orientations which ought to be considered? 3. ‘What percentage of American hosts fall into each orientation? 4. How stable are the orientations? Do American hosts get sedimented in one of the orientations, do they shift orientations or do they float between orientations? 178 5. Can graphing of the orientations be supported statistically? A possible configuration would look as follows: Figure 27. POSSIBLE (DNFIGURATION OF ORIENTATIONS Task Orientation Familial Client Orientation I Orientation Friendship Orientation 6. Are there other ways of construing or naming the sets of statements identified by the four orientations? Are there different basic ways to account for the statements? RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFUGEE RESEITLEMENT PRCXJRAMS The findings of the research lead to various suggestions for those who direct refugee resettlement programs. First, to increase the chances of the development of healthy relationships, provide at least some initial language and culture training for the Americans. The subjects of this research reported that they had received little or no orientation from anyone on dealing with cultural strangers. Second, recognize that some sponsors may not want to enter into anything more than an activity or service-providing relationship. If people with this orientation are going to be called upon to sponsor, the following guidelines may be helpful in assuring a satisfactory relationship with the refugees: 1. It may be difficult for the refugees to understand a formalized, bureaucratic relationship. Such a structure may be very different from any relationship which they have ever experienced. If their sponsor is willing to provide only very specific resettlement help, it may be wise to introduce the sponsor not as a sponsor but as someone called upon to help them with specified tasks. 179 2. Make sure that the sponsors realize that, even if they have decided to limit their involvement in the lives of refugees, sponsorship will still occupy much labor-intensive time for them. 3. Work to overcome sponsor fatigue by encouraging the development of mutually-nurturing relationships. Non-familial, unpaid relationships dependent on large amounts of time and work for long periods have little chance of enduring. However, even a patron-client relationship can be sustained over time if both parties recognize the importance of maintaining it. 4. Recognize that the establishment of a formal relationship, such as sponsor-to-refugee, is not enough to promote sustained intercultural contact. If one wants a durable relationship or if one wants to maintain a pool Of sponsors, the relationship which obtains between sponsor and refugee will have to be transformed into something else. Several potential transformations appear below: At Start Potential Transformations Sponsor-Refugee Sponsor Fatigue Patron-Client Acquaintance-Acquaintance Friend-Friend Fictive Family 5. At least from the host's perspective and probably from that of the refugee, if a host's initial role is to help the refugee acculturate to the host's society, the gender of the host ought to match that of the refugee. 6. Resettlement agencies would do well to suggest that sponsors work to define a new intercultural identity for themselves as host rather than recommending that they become friends with refugees . The client and task orientations offer attractive models for such identities. Kenneth complicated his situation by not placing boundaries around his client relationship. He assumed far more significant, labor-intensive responsibilities than were required of him by the sponsorship agreement. Third, recognize that time is needed for development of relationships. In order to develop long-term relationships with refugees, the American subjects whose orientations toward refugees can be 180 characterized as task will have to spend much more time interacting faoe-to-face with Asians. This extra time can be spent in conversation as well as in other activities which involve face-to-face interaction. Fourth, in order to help refugees, middle-class Americans have to know as much or more about how American society works, especially the operations of bureaucracies, as they do about Southeast Asia and the cultural patterns of the refugees who have from there. The subjects' relationships with Southeast Asians put them in touch with operations in In these the social service agencies supported by their tax dollars. contacts with social service agencies the subjects' status tended to be reversed from their usual stance of power over against service providers (business people - they are the customer) to one of weakness. They partook of the refugees' status even as they served as links to This conclusion institutions and people in mainstream American society. parallels those of Fein (1987) and Woon (1987). Fifth, sponsors can use help in learning to deal and cope with the public assistance systems as well as with the refugees. This recommendation may apply to Canada as well, given the reported difference (Johnson & Beiser, 1985) between refugees sponsored by private parties and those sponsored by government agencies. Perhaps the reported sponsor fatigue has as much to do with culture Shock in encountering the welfare system's bureaucrats and procedures as it does with dealing with refugees. A satisfying relationship with a refugee and low sponsor fatigue may indicate an ability to deal with US bureaucracies as much as with The occupational status and political connections of Alan refugees. and Peter may account in part for the pleasant way in which their 181 relationships with refugees developed. Perhaps for the first time people such as Alan and Peter saw some specific good results of their influence. Sixth, based on the findings of this research, several suggestions can be made for those involved in training Americans to resettle refugees. The hosts reported that they rarely had opportunities to speak Several reported about their involvement with and feelings for refugees. confusion as to what had happened in their relationships with refugees as well as pain in what they perceived as breaches in their relationships. They appeared to lack feedback which they could understand about how the Gatherings for conversations between Americans refugees perceived them. who have shared their experiences with refugee strangers would hold the possibility of the subjects learning that their experiences were not unique. Acculturated refugees could provide very helpful resources to such conversations . SUMMARY This research found that there are people of good intent in at least These hosts, one host society who have reached out to refugee strangers. often moved by compassion, sought to ease culturally different refugees Other research has indicated the into a culturally new setting. For example, study of the Canadian model inadequacies of some Sponsors. of resettling refugees by government bureaucrats has shown that refugees resettled by bureaucrats have fewer ties to and less affiliation with the wider Canadian society but more knowledge of government services than refugees resettled by private sponsors. The United States government does well to continue its practice of Such sponsorships enable resettling refugees through private sponsors. host Americans to welcome refugees into American society, to learn about 182 their own society and to learn about the societies from which the refugees have come. Government policy ought to be expanded to include resources for sponsor orientation, for monitoring what happens to refugees after they arrive and for discovering how effectively sponsors fulfill their commitments. People responsible for federal and state refugee policy development also would do well to rethink the dispersal strategy by arranging trial settlements for groups of refugees. Such efforts may reduce the incidence of secondary migration and the resulting weakening or elimination of links between refugees and the American hosts whom they have come to know through sponsorship. LIST OF REFERBCES LIST OF REFERENCES Agar, M. (1980). The professional stranger: An informal introduction to ethnography. New York: Academic Press. Agar, M. H. (1986). Speaking of ethnography. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications. .1 Apps, J.‘W. (1972). Toward a broader definition of research. Adult Education, 2;, 59-64. Apps, J.‘w. (1979). Problems in continuing education. New York: Ashmun, L. F. (Ed.). (1983). Resettlement of Indochinese refugees in the United States: A selective and annotated bibliography. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University, Center for Southeast Asian Studies. Becker, S. L. (1969). Directions for intercultural communication research. Central States Speech Journal, 29, 3-13. Bekker, G. J. (1985a). Father? Teacher? Friend? Instructor-student relationships in a refugee class. Unpublished class paper for Teacher Education 923 Fieldwork in Educational Settings III, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Bekker, G. J. (1985b). Father? Teacher? Friend? Instructor-student relationships in a refugee class. Proceedinis of the fourth annual midwest research-to-practice conference in adult and continuing education. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Bochner, S. (1982). The social psychology of cross-cultural relations. In S. Bochner (Ed.). Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural interaction (pp. 5-44). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Brislin, R.‘W. (1981). Cross-cultural encounters: Face to face interaction. New York: Pergamon Press. Brookfield, S. (1982). Adult education research: A comparison of North American theory and practice. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 1982, 1(2), 157-168. Cameron, N. M. deS. (1988). Providence. In S. B. Ferguson, D. F. wright, & J. I. Packer (Eds.), New dictionary of theology (pp. 541-542). Downers Grove, IL & Leicester, U.K.: Intervarsity Press. 183 184 Charnley, A. H. (1984). Research and research documentation in adult Studies in the Education Of education 1974-1984: A personal view. Adults, _l_6_, 58-69. Church World Service. (1980, Spring). Refugees & sponsorship. New York: Author . Church World Service Immigration and Refugee Program. (1986) . Manual for refugee sponsorship. New York: Author. (1956). Adult education in transition: A study of University of California Publications in Clark, 8. R. Berkeley, and Los institutional insecurity. Sociology and Social Institutions, Vol. 1, NO. 2. Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Compact edition of the Oxford English dictionary. Glasgow, UK: Oxford University Press. (1971) . Ind0-. (1975, reprint 1985). An introduction to Condon, J. C., & Yousef, F. S. New York: Macmillan Publishing intercultural communication. Company. Cross, K. P. (1982). Jossey-Bass. Adults as learners. San Francisco, CA: Darkenwald, G. G. (1980). Field research and grounded theory. In H. B. Long, R. Hiemstra, & Associates, Changing gpproaches to studying adult education (pp. 63-77). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Downing, B. T., & Olney, D. P. (Eds.). (1982). The Hmongin the West: Observations and reportsln papers of the 1982 Hmong Research Conference, University of Minnesota. Minneapolis, MN: Southeast Asian Refugee Studies Project, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota. Erickson, F. E. (1986). Qualitative researching on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). (PP. 119-161). New York: Macmillan. Fein, H. (1987). Con egational sponsors Of Indochinese refugees in the United States, 1979-1981: Helping beyond borders. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Finnan, C. R. (1981). Occupational assimilation of refugees. International Migration Review, 12, 292-309. Frake, C. O. (1964). Notes on queries in ethnography. American Anthropologist, _6_6_(3, part 2), 132-145. (1989). Hearts of sorrow: Vietnamese-American lives. Freeman, J. M. Standford University Press. Stanford, CA: 185 Furnham, A., & Bochner, S. (1982). Social difficulty in a foreign culture: An empirical analysis of culture shock. In S. Bochner (ed.), Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural interaction (pp. 161-198). New York: Pergamon. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing Company. Gudykunst,‘w. B. (1983). Toward a typology of stranger-host relationships. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 401-413. [\I ‘ Gudykunst,‘w. B. (1985). An exploratory comparison of close intra- cultural and intercultural friendships. Communication Quarterly, pg, 270-283. Gudykunst,‘w. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (1984). Communicating with strangers: An approach to intercultural communication. New York: Random House. Gullahorn, J., & Gullahorn, J. (1963). An extension of the u-curve hypothesis. Journal of Social Issues, 12(3), 33-47. Hendricks, Glen, Downing, Bruce, & Deinard, Amos. (Eds.). (1986). The Hmong in transition. New York: Center for Migration Studies. Houle, C. O. (1961). The inquiring mind. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Inkeles, A. (1964). What is sociology?. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Jesuit Refugee Service. (n.d.). An invitation to Jesuit communities to sponsor refugees. Washington, D.C.: Author. Johnson, P. J., & Beiser, M. (1985). Impact of type of sponsorship on refugee resettlement experiences. Unpublished manuscript. Kidd, J. R. (1981). Education research needs in adult education. Convergence, 15(2), 53-62. Klein, M. H., Miller, M., & Alexander, A. A. (1974). When young people go out in the world. In w. P. Lebra (Ed.). Conference on culture and mental health: Youth, socialization and mental health. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii. Klineberg, O. (1982). Contact between ethnic groups: A historical perspective of some aspects of theory and research. In S. Bochner (Ed.). Cultures in contact: Studies in cross-cultural interaction (pp. 45-55). Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. Labov, W. (1963). The social motivation of a sound change. Word, l2, 273-309. 186 Lambert, R. D. (1966). Some minor pathologies in the American presence in India. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social SCienOeS, _3_6._8_' 157-170 0 Levine, D. N. (1979). Simmel at a distance. In W. Shack & E. Skinner (Eds.), Strangers in African Societies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Long, H. B. (1980). A perspective on adult education research. In H. B. Long, R. Hiemstra & Associates, Changing approaches to studying adult education (pp. 1-21). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Long, H. B. (1983a). Adult learning: Research and practice. New York: cambridge. Long, H. B. (1983b). Characteristics of adult education research reported at the adult education research conference, 1971-1980. Adult Education, 33(2), 79-96. Long, H. B., Hiemstra, H., & Associates. (1980). Changing approaches to studying adult education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mccrosky, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Daly, J. A. (1975). The develOpment of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, I, 323-332. McDermott, R. P., Gospodinoff, K., & Aron, J. (1978). criteria for an ethnographically adequate description of concerted activities and their contexts. Semiotica, 24(3,4,), 245-275. McInnis, K. (1981). Secondary migration among the Indochinese. Journal of Refugee Resettlement, lj3), 36-42. McKean, P. (1978). Towards a theoretical analysis of tourism: Economic dualism and cultural involution in Bali. In V. Smith (Ed.), Hosts and guests (pp. 93-107). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. McLemore, S. D. (1970). Simmel's stranger: A critique of the concept. Pacific Sociological Review, l3, 86-94. Meinhardt, K., Tom, 8., Tse, P., & Yu, C. Y. (1984, August 3). Santa Clara Cbunty Health Department Asian Health Assessment Project. Santa Clara County, CA: Author. Meredith, W; H., & cramer, S. L. (1981). SPOnsors of Nebraska Indochinese refugees: Meeting the challenges. Lincoln, Nebraska: Cbllege of Home Economics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 206 766) Merriam, S. B., & Simpson, E. L. (1984). A guide to research for educators and trainers of adults. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company. 187 Mezirow, J., Darkenwald, G. G., & Knox, A. B. (1975). Last gamble on education. washington, D.C.: Adult Education Association of the U.S.A. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 112-119) Migration and Refugee Services. (1984, March). Refugee information series: Refugees from Highland Laos: A look at history, culture and the refugee crisis. washington, DC: Author. Mortenson, T. (1981). Factors influencing refugee sponsorship in the U.S. Journal of Refugee Resettlement, 1(2), 6-17. Muecke, M. A. (1983). caring for Southeast Asian refugee patients in the USA. American Journal of Public Health, 13, 431-438. h~ North, D. S., Lewin, L. S., & wagner, J. R. (1982). KALEIDOSOOPE: The resettlement of refugees in the United States by the voluntary agencies (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: New Transcentury Foundation. V American < > Asian <--> Asians Other Americans Just within the American's understanding of the relationship: 0 O O O O O O O A . . /V w\ t s . 0 . < >/ Close \ < > h 1 . . . \, Relationship / e a . _, / r n O 0 8 Functions as a filter through which all other relationships with refugees are seen. Implications: 1. If hosts want to establish deep, close, sustained relationships with Asians, they must make a friend. They must make at least one very, very close relationship. - More than one close one may be possible: but, you need at least one. 2. If resettlement agencies want to encourage good relationships (successful resettlement? doesn't really indicate that) for refugees, they must encourage the development of at least one good relationship with a host. 204 - Brings up all of the 'dependency' problems, and this bothered the subjects. If the assertion stated above can be supported by evidence from other interviews, it may bear implications for other types of relationships. Foreign student - advisor Military - Military Business person - business person (Key foreign student at MSU -- comments on importance of faculty advisor) 205 APPENDIX G3: EXAMPLE OF A JOURNAL ENTRY REFLECTING ON THE RESEARCH PROCESS Journal Entry #21: July (missing date), 1986 Toledo Church: Pastor's Study I just interviewed Bill and Barbara. I had heard the story of their involvement with refugees three times before. a. First visit here - spontaneous. b. In interview with another American. c. At first intercultural relations conference. I suspect that their, especially Barbara's, having related the tale so many times previously had a bit of an inhibiting effect on our talk. Interview offers a fragile research tool. Overdoing it kills it. I'd give a lot for a tape of our first conversation back in 1984. The feeling that it's been said before does nothing to facilitate talk. Nonetheless, interviewing offers a powerful research tool. I've gotten some great stories. Even in this interview I got the story: however, it didn't flow like the first time.