Religion and Assimilation Among Turkish Muslim Immigrants

1 downloads 0 Views 446KB Size Report
Jul 24, 2013 - longer Muslims live in the USA, the more likely they are to feel that it is ... Turkish immigrants' assimilation to life in the USA is explored using three criteria: ..... “If there is one thing I hate the most, it is being misunderstood.
Int. Migration & Integration (2014) 15:487–507 DOI 10.1007/s12134-013-0301-9

Religion and Assimilation Among Turkish Muslim Immigrants: Comparing Practicing and Non-Practicing Muslims Elif Bulut & Helen Rose Ebaugh

Published online: 24 July 2013 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract In the literature on religion and assimilation, Muslims are usually categorized into one group without any reference to their differences in terms of religious practice and ethnicity. This paper sheds light on such differences by illustrating the case of Turkish immigrants in the USA, one of the least studied immigrant groups. Based on interviews with practicing and non-practicing Turkish Muslims in Houston, we address the issue of how practices of religion play its role in the assimilation of Turkish immigrants. Data reveal that while Turks in general are fairly well adapted into American society, there are some major differences between practicing and nonpracticing Turkish Muslims, even though practically all Turks identify as Muslim. Keywords Religion . Religious practice . Assimilation . Muslims . Turkish immigrants in the United States

Introduction The passage of the 1965 Immigration Act has dramatically changed the religious landscape of America. Although the majority of immigrants are Christian, millions of adherents of other religions have joined Jews to expand American religious diversity (Warner and Wittner 1998). Although immigrant Muslims constitute a growing and increasingly important segment of American society, and according to many accounts (e.g. Haddad et al. 2003; Haddad and Lummis 1987), Islam is the third largest and fastest growing religion in America, until recently, immigration scholars have paid little attention to Muslims’ religious patterns in relation to their adaptation to this country. There is little empirical data on the impact of religious E. Bulut (*) Department of Sociology Race and Urban Studies, Georgia State University, Atlanta, USA e-mail: [email protected] H. R. Ebaugh Department of Sociology, University of Houston, Houston, USA e-mail: [email protected]

488

E. Bulut, H.R. Ebaugh

practice on adaptation patterns of Muslim immigrants in the USA. This situation is due mainly to a lack of regard in the current literature for the diversity among Muslim immigrants and the assumption that religious identity is paramount for all Muslims. Accordingly, Muslims in the USA are usually categorized into one group without any reference to their ethnic, cultural, and religious differences, which Roy (2004) calls as the “neo-ethnicization” of Muslims. Many scholars (e.g., Alkhazraji 1997; Ebaugh and Chafetz 2000; Elkholy 1966; Haddad and Lummis 1987; Haddad and Esposito 1998; Haddad et al. 2003; Khalid 1997; Warner and Wittner 1998) have studied Muslims in this “neo-ethnic” sense, that is to say, their studies center mainly on “Muslims in America” or “Islam in the West” without allowance for the differences among Muslim groups. We assert that this “neo-ethnicization” hinders a clear understanding of Muslim assimilation phenomena in the USA. This paper aims to shed light on such differences by illustrating the case of Turkish immigrants in the USA, who constituted the first largest group of Muslims to come to the USA (Grabowski and John 2005). A Methodological Flaw in Studies of Muslims: Measuring “Unmosqued Muslims” >Along with a “neo-ethnic” perception, a methodological flaw in measuring the religiosity among Muslims runs through most of the studies of Muslims. To date, most of the scholars who have studied Muslim adaptation patterns in relation to their religiosity have studied those Muslims who are mosque goers. Taking into consideration the fact that Islam, unlike Christian denominations, is a non-congregational religion with no requirement for believers to “go to mosque” (as in going to church) at set times—except for Friday prayer—and of an estimated six million Muslims in the USA, only about 6 % attend a mosque on a weekly basis (Bagby 2011), the findings of previous studies fall short in describing general patterns for many Muslims. Complicating matters is that many prominent Muslim scholars in their studies of Muslim immigrants implicitly assume that not going to mosque is a sign of non-practice. Even the most recent nationwide survey from the Pew Research Center Study (2011)) uses mosque attendance for daily prayers and for Friday prayers as a basic measure of religiosity. Hence, the results present questionable analysis of practicing but not regularly mosque attending Muslim men.1 The same holds true for the majority of women who traditionally are not encouraged to participate in regular daily prayers at mosque and again traditionally are waived from Friday prayer. This paper aims to fill this gap by comparing practicing and non-practicing Turkish Muslims by using six criteria of religious observance. Turkish immigrants, in this regard, provide an instance in which to study religious and nonreligious Muslims because of the secular government in Turkey and the history of privatization of religion in that country. Thus, by comparing practicing and non-practicing Turkish Muslims, we examine the patterns and the ways in which religion works its way through the process of assimilation into U.S. society.

1

There are many practicing Muslims who cannot attend Friday prayers because it conflicts with their work schedules.

Religion and Assimilation Among Turkish Muslim Immigrants

489

Immigrant Assimilation Assimilation, first and foremost, implies the acceptance of novel circumstances (Park et al. 1921). In this process, immigrants are challenged to make some accommodations to navigate the new society. Earlier scholars of immigration suggested that those accommodations will eventually result in complete assimilation of immigrants into the host society. Gordon (1964), in this regard, introduced a seven-stage model of assimilation, whereby immigrants gradually lose their cultural and ethnic identities and become “absorbed” into the larger society. However, a new line of research in the second half of the twentieth century has emerged to counter the claims of a straightforward, linear assimilation on the part of immigrants. These scholars have argued that immigrants today have different characteristics than earlier waves of immigrants and thus, they assimilate in different ways, e.g., selective assimilation (Portes, Alejandro 1997). In addition, they contend that immigrants may not necessarily lose their ethnic and cultural characteristics in the process of assimilation to life in a new society (Portes et al. 2006; Portes and Zhou 1993). Religion and Assimilation Religion’s salience for today’s immigrant groups, along the above lines, is a good example of how the immigrant assimilation process is multidimensional, rather than uniform. Religion’s significance in supporting the adjustment of immigrants to the life in a new society is well demonstrated in the literature. According to Smith (1978), immigration itself a “theologizing experience” raising questions of identity and meaning, religion may be able to answer. In this sense, by “creating, reinforcing and maintaining social solidarity” among the immigrants in the new land (Durkheim 1997 [1893]), religion helps immigrants to avoid the danger of anomie and hence smoothes their assimilation process. In his comprehensive analysis, Hirschman (2004) summarizes social functions of religion “in the three Rs”: refuge, respect, and resources. The first function refers to the early, often traumatic stage of arrival and resettlement where a church, temple, or mosque may be a key source of comfort and protection. The second function addresses identity struggles of immigrants and a sense of selfworth. In immigrants’ home countries, religion is usually something “in the air” that is often taken for granted. Muslims in America, however, have to make efforts to find the time for daily prayers in contrast to the home country where they can hear the call to prayer everywhere in the streets. Immigrants raise money to build their places of worship, create volunteer networks and so forth. Thus, religion provides immigrants with a strong sense of identity and a tie with the old tradition. A religious community or institution, in this respect, is a place “where the standards you grew up with are still valorized and honored” (Warner and Wittner 1998). Also, as a result of the prevalent religious freedom in the USA, immigrants usually find it more appropriate to be religious in this new country than in their homelands. This fact is evident in many accounts of our respondents who informed us that they became more religious here in the USA as they realized “people are practicing their religions here, and it is not a bad thing” as opposed to Turkey where in a modern context “being religious equaled to being backward.”

490

E. Bulut, H.R. Ebaugh

Another function points to the resources religion provides for immigrants. By virtue of reinterpretations, referrals and returns to theological foundations, immigrant religion in America changes to adapt to the new conditions. Smith’s (1978) wonderful phrase “folk memories are brought to bear on new aspirations” is helpful to grasp how religion becomes a resource in adopting American ideals of freedom, democracy, and equality. It is this aspect of religion that makes many scholars claim that the longer Muslims live in the USA, the more likely they are to feel that it is appropriate for women to be eligible for top lay leadership positions (Haddad and Lummis 1987). In light of the relationship between religion and assimilation, in this study, we investigate the most significant patterns of Turkish Muslims assimilation process in regard to their religiosity. In other words, we explore whether non-practicing Muslims differ in their assimilation patterns from those who are practicing Muslims.

Methodology Data Collection The data for this study consist of in-depth interviews conducted with Turkish Muslim immigrants in the Houston metropolitan area. There are an estimated 5,000 such immigrants in Houston. We interviewed 40 Muslims, half who practice their religion and half who do not. By using snowball and purposive sampling, we contacted people mainly through personal contacts, as well as cultural institutions and community facilities. Some of the major socio-demographics of our sample in this study are shown in Appendix A. Overall, the majority of the respondents in this study possess high levels of human capital in terms of their education and income levels, in concurrence with the findings of other studies of Muslims in the USA (Wuthnow and Hackett 2003; Haddad et al. 2003; Pew Research Center Study 2011). Data Analysis Interview questions were mainly open-ended, however, since this is a comparative study of practicing and non-practicing Muslims, some screening questions were asked to determine whether the subject fit either of those groups. The items to measure the practices of religion are as follows: (a) praying five times daily, (b) fasting during Ramadan, (c) wearing a headscarf in the case of women, (d) performing hajj/planning to perform, (e) drinking alcohol, and (f) eating halal food. Our religious practice scale, as shown in Table 1, is composed of two major categories. Praying three times a day and more (salat) is assigned three points as many Muslims and scholars of Muslims define prayer (salat)2 as the dividing line between a “practicing” and a “believing” Muslim (Bowen and John 2004). In a similar fashion, other practices are each assigned 1-point. Hence, those women who score a total of 6 points (out of 8) or higher are considered practicing Muslims, while men who score 5 points (out of 7) or higher are classified as such. Likewise, women 2

The Arabic term for daily prayer.

Religion and Assimilation Among Turkish Muslim Immigrants

491

Table 1 Religious practice scale Category

Yes

No

Salat

3

0

Fasting

1

0

Alcohol

1

0

Hajj

1

0

Halal meat

1

0

Headscarf

1

0

Religious practice scale (0–8) Women

Men

Practicing

Score of 6 or more

Score of 5 or more

Non-practicing

Score of 5 or less

Score of 4 or less

who score between 0 and 5 are considered non-practicing, while men who score between 0 and 4 are considered as such. The difference in the standard points for practice between men and women is due to the fact that men do not have a corresponding category for wearing the headscarf. Turkish immigrants’ assimilation to life in the USA is explored using three criteria: (a) self-report3, (b) social networks measured by the ethnicity of one’s five best friends, (c) supportive attitudes towards intermarriage with non-Muslims and nonTurks, and (d) acquisition of the English language4.

Results Overall, our findings show that practicing Turks are more likely to report a high degree of self-reported adaptation to life in the USA. In addition, they report higher language acquisition than non-practicing Muslims. On the other hand, non-practicing Turks are more likely to make friends outside of their Turkish Muslim social networks and express more supportive attitudes toward intermarriage. Self Reports of Assimilation As shown in Fig. 1, data show that practicing Turkish Muslims are more likely to report a high degree of self-reported assimilation than non-practicing ones (75 % vs. 60 %). Reasons regarding a high degree of assimilation among practicing Muslims usually parallel the responses in regard to the question about the things they appreciate in the USA. As such, along with the appreciation for the quality of professional 3

Since assimilation is, after all, hard to measure specifically of Muslims whose assimilation is widely questioned in American society and media, we consider subjective experiences and definitions held by Turkish Muslims regarding their adaptation degree to be very critical. Our question regarding self-report of assimilation is: “If required to order from 0 to 5, how would you rank your adaptation to life in the United States? Why so? 4 Acquisition of the English language also parallel assimilation to life in America (Portes and Rumbaut 2006). The question regarding language acquisition is: “What level of English are you? (Options are: Beginner, Intermediate, Upper-intermediate, Advanced, Fluent). Have you improved your English since you first came to the United States, why or why not?”

492

E. Bulut, H.R. Ebaugh

Fig. 1 Self-report of assimilation and religious practice

work life and kind attitudes of people in general, respondents express that they feel comfortable because they are not treated differently because of their appearances. A 30-year-old practicing female respondent who works in the Texas Medical Center comments on this issue as follows: “It seems like, of course you never know what is in people’s hearts, but they don’t care about your color or how you dress or you know, they don’t even wonder what your political view is, it is pure professional environment, and I love this here.” Similarly, a practicing respondent with a self-report score of 4 highlights the religious freedom in the USA as the most important factor in his adaptation. In his own words: “We love it here because our children can get the education they want, and there is no problem like in Turkey. In Turkey, they cannot go to the school they want because of the religious conflicts. That’s why we like it here more.” The reason this respondent gave for the lack of religious freedom relates to the headscarf ban in Turkey. For many years, those who wear the headscarf were not allowed to attend universities or work in public sector institutions. This was mentioned by many practicing respondents in relation to their positive orientations towards living in America. Characteristic of this kind of report are the comments of a 27-year-old practicing graduate student: “…when you practice your religion here (in America), they show respect. I mean, here in general people respect the practice of any religion. But in Turkey, you encounter problems, they perceive you as backward. So, it is hard to practice your religion in Turkey. You are not being treated as respectfully as in here. Here, there is a lot of respect.” Among all other reasons, the tendency on the part of practicing respondents to report high scores of assimilation to the life in the USA is mainly because of the differences they perceive in regards to the absense of regulations that prevents them from practicing their religion. On the other hand, respondents, both practicing and non-practicing, who report a lower degree of adaptation, are more comfortable when they “feel Turkish” in the

Religion and Assimilation Among Turkish Muslim Immigrants

493

USA. Characteristic of this feeling are the comments of a non-practicing 29-year-old PhD student who explains the reasons why he reported 3 as his rank of adaptation to America: “Well, I watch American football, and I like it a lot. I have some American friends, too. But I still watch Turkish news, you know, I still read Turkish newspapers, I still look at the Turkish weather. So those things that I don’t need here, I still watch Turkish soccer games, it seems that you know we are not really adapted here a lot. You know number 5 is I feel that like you live as American. You know, some part of me is still living in Turkey so I believe it’s 3.” When we further asked our respondents if they wanted their degree of assimilation higher in the future, all but six respondents expressed that they did not. A 56-year-old non-practicing carpet seller, who reported an adaptation score of 4, reasons about the impossibility of a score of 5 in the following way: “We were born in Turkey, until a certain age we lived there, we learned about the Turkish customs and traditions and we adopted them. So, neither in terms of traditions nor the sense of taste, we cannot be like Americans, those who are born here can be, but we cannot.” Many respondents confirmed this sense of belonging to which the carper seller gave voice. Like him, they emphasize that they could never score a 5 since they were not born in America. This is evident in their narratives. A 28year-old non-practicing graduate student confirmed this sense of belonging and meaning that her Turkish identity bears for her. She equates 5 to being American; when I asked what being American meant for her, she elaborated as follows: “I don’t know, I feel like I would not miss Turkey anymore, or, I should say, it means, I could live without the smell of hot tea in the morning, but I don’t want that. Even if I stay here, I want to know that there is a place I can go back to. This gives me strength in my difficult times. There is no going back; I don’t want to feel this way. When the rank is 4, that means, I live comfortably like an American, I like what I do here, but at the same time, I should know that there is Turkey too, one day if I want to go back, I can be comfortable there too. But if it is 5, when I go back to Turkey, I feel like, I will be like an American living in Turkey.” Responses of participants show that, for many, America is a dream come true in terms of the opportunities it offers them to achieve personal and professional goals; yet, still, it is not “home.” Social Networks In the sociological literature, the distinction between primary and secondary relationships is specified by Gordon (1964) as an important criterion as he considered primary relationships with the host society a stage of assimilation. One aspect of this type of assimilation is the pattern of friendships, that is, the more assimilated the individual, the more likely he/she will be to expand friendships outside of the primary

494

E. Bulut, H.R. Ebaugh

reference group. Likewise, in this study, social networks of the respondents were measured by their five closest friends. The question was articulated as follows: “When you think of your five best friends, how many of them are practicing Turkish Muslims? How many of them are Turkish but non-practicing Muslims? How many are non-Turkish and non-Muslim?” Responses to this specific question are shown in Fig. 2.5 These results reveal some points that require attention. First, there is a dramatic difference between the practicing and non-practicing respondents on the social networks dimension of assimilation; that is, making friends outside of the Turkish Muslim community. Furthermore, of the non-practicing respondents’ 5 best friends, 30 % are non-Turkish and non-Muslim which is twice as high as for practicing respondents (15 %). One possible factor can be the conservative attitudes of practicing respondents with respect to going to places where people drink alcohol. A practicing respondent who makes friends largely outside of his community refers and criticizes practicing Turks’ negative attitude towards “going to bars and night clubs” as follows: “If you have friends you gotta go to bars eventually, but you don’t have to drink. Like I said, you don’t have to do the things that they are doing.” Secondly, data also reveals a discernible lack of interaction between practicing and non-practicing Turkish people. This is evident specifically on the side of practicing respondents who reported that 78 % of their best friends were also practicing people, while merely 7 % were non-practicing. These figures give evidence to practicing Turks’ tendency to make friends mostly with other practicing people. On the other hand, of the non-practicing Turks’ best friends, 39 % are non-practicing, whereas 31 % are practicing. This shows that non-practicing respondents make friends largely with practicing Turks. In sum, practicing respondents seem to be isolated in their social networks both intra-group and across groups. Since the question regarding five best fiends was close-ended, it is hard, at this point, to further examine the reasons behind this isolation. Nevertheless, findings suggest that factors such as education level and length of stay should be given special attention since higher reports in both categories parallel more friends outside of one’s own community. Attitudes towards Intermarriage Supportive attitudes towards intermarriage also correlate with immigrants’ sociocultural assimilation to America (Philips and Fishman 2006; Elkholy 1966). In this study, the intermarriage dimension of assimilation is measured by the question: “If you have or will have children, would you prefer your son/daughter marrying someone neither Turkish nor Muslim?”

5

Notably, out of 20 practicing respondents, 13 reported having no non-Turkish and non-Muslim friends, while within non-practicing respondents, 8 reported as such.

Religion and Assimilation Among Turkish Muslim Immigrants

495

Social Networks and Religious Practice

percentage

78%

54.50% 39% 31%

30% 23%

22.50% 15%

7%

Non-practicing Turkish best friends Non-Turkish and Non-Muslim non-practicing practicing total

Practicing Turkish best friends

Fig. 2 Social networks and religious practice

Negative Attitudes Towards Intermarriage Data in Fig. 3. reveal that practicing respondents are more likely to oppose the idea of intermarriage of their children than the non-practicing respondents. Of those who expressed a negative attitude, 37.5 % were non-practicing Turks and 62.5 % were practicing Turks. 6 These results are in line with the results of other data in our study, which shows that practicing respondents tend to stress Muslimness in marriage much more strongly than non-practicing Turks (67 % vs. 33 %). Likewise, of all practicing respondents, 68 % prefer their children marrying practicing Turks, compared with 32 % of all nonpracticing respondents. A 42-year-old practicing marble designer reflected this attitude: “I think religion plays a significant role in people’s lives. That’s why, if the religions are the same, the relations, I think, will be better. Otherwise, I don’t think people would understand each other and get along well enough.” Another motive for opposition to intermarriage among practicing respondents regards cosmological concerns. As such, decisions regarding marriage are based on the concerns regarding afterlife. Characteristic of this kind of feeling are the comments of a practicing 57-year-old tailor: “As I said before, race is not important for me, we do not have a choice in our races, but we have a choice in our religion. Since the time will be eternal in the next life, I would not change it for temporary things. Therefore, religious values are more important for me compared to other worldly stuff. That’s why I would prefer her or him to be Muslim. He or she can be Indian, Greek; I would not mind as long as he or she is a Muslim.”

6

From a total of 40 respondents, 16 were against the idea of their children marrying someone neither Turkish nor Muslim, 18 were in favor, and 6 were in favor of such intermarriage under certain circumstances. Overall, a large percentage of Turks in Houston (55 %) have somewhat liberal attitudes towards the intermarriage of their children.

496

E. Bulut, H.R. Ebaugh

Fig. 3 Attitudes toward intermarriage

Implicit in the accounts of this practicing respondent’s expressions is that in order to earn the next life, one needs to be a Muslim. Similar, albeit not the same, concerns exist among some non-practicing respondents. A 33-year-old non-practicing lawyer confirms this in the following way: “Being Turkish is not mandatory. Let me put it this way: I would hope that my in laws from both sides would be of the Abrahamic faith. I enjoy seeing people involved genuinely and honestly in their religion.” Abrahamic religion is a commonly used term to designate the three prevalent monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. With respect to the theological similarities among them, this respondent’s comment reflects a need to find at least “bare minimum” religious commonalities between spouses in marriage. Another respondent, a non-practicing 47-year-old professor, expressed similar concerns regarding the indispensable role that religion plays in the marriages of Turks: “That is an observation throughout my life, especially for our culture, when spouses are from different religions, that marriage doesn’t work. I have observed this too many times. Now, if the couple is American, the husband can be Buddhist and the wife can be Jewish, that marriage can work, because religion has a different importance in those other cultures. But in our culture, religion is important even for the people who look and act very secular. I have seen that becoming an issue and eventually causing the marriage to fail. It is amazing but it happens.” Differences, in this sense, are the source of prudence towards intermarriage. As such, a main concern among respondents who oppose the idea of intermarriage is the differences between the cultures, of which religion is an integral part. When asked what kind of difficulties they imagine, a non-practicing 29-year-old graduate student responds as follows: “Everything. You know, they like to go to American restaurant, you like mostly Turkish restaurants. You know you should have some friends, Turkish friends, they have American friends. Well, the sex life they have, you know they are really different. We are more conservative you know in that way. And then they are not, that is the most important thing and then you know the religious thing again, it’s connected to that.”

Religion and Assimilation Among Turkish Muslim Immigrants

497

According to this respondent, differences, which vary from the sense of taste to sexual relations before marriage, can be a source of conflict in marriage as it hinders getting along well with one another. For many respondents, these differences mentioned become more important especially when the second or third generation is considered. Many actually point to the importance of moral values in marriage, such as “honesty, respect, caring, being helpful”; yet, when it comes to forming families, raising children in intermarriage, their concerns arise regarding the religious and cultural dilemmas. The main concern in this regard is the maintenance of the Muslim identity. As a non-practicing respondent remarks: “Everything is good, oh you love me and I love you, so we get married, and you know everything is beautiful, we are having fun, and we will have kids, too. So say 10 years later, when we have kids, I want this kid to be raised that way, to go to a specific school, or to go to Turkey, what is gonna happen then?” Religion of the next generations is a main concern for a 29-year-old practicing teacher: “I never thought about this, from our point of view, she will never have our approval, we won’t agree with this just because, first of all, she is disobeying to her own religion, and then thinking about her children, would not be Muslims, so this is not an option for us. But if she really insists, I don’t know what we will do.” Again, for a practicing female, maintaining Muslim identity can be achieved by monitoring whom your daughter is dating. Dating, in this sense, is a source of caution: “I don’t want to lose my daughter. So, I believe if you raise your daughter in a certain way, like my dad, when I came here I had a lot of challenges. I had a lot of guys came to ask me for dating and they were very good looking. You could feel nice things, but I didn’t go dating with them, as they were not Muslim. Then if I teach my daughter in the same way, then I feel safe about her. So, I hope she doesn’t do that, if she does that, I will feel very sorry.” Overall, from the above comments, two patterns arise. The first pattern is that practicing respondents are much more resistant to the intermarriage of children than non-practicing respondents. Many believe that religion plays an important role in people’s lives, thus, if the couples are not from the same religion, it is hard for them to get along well. The religion of intermarried couples’ children is a very big concern in this regard. Respondents wary that those children might not become Muslims. They also believe that it is about their eternal life, thus they implicitly claim that one needs to marry someone Muslim or at least someone who believes in one God in order to earn afterlife. However, some factors can change the practicing respondents’ negative attitudes towards intermarriage. Findings suggest that length of stay in the USA is one such factor. That is, the longer practicing Turks live in America, the less they have negative attitudes towards intermarriage. The second pattern is that for many Turkish respondents religion or religious values, non-practicing and practicing respondents alike, becomes like a shelter, in

498

E. Bulut, H.R. Ebaugh

other words it functions as refuge, which protects them, specifically their children from the “negative influences” of the society they live in. This pattern may also somewhat account for many respondents’ tendency to practice religion more in the USA than they did in Turkey or to have more practicing friends in America than they had in Turkey. Positive Attitudes Towards Intermarriage As shown in Fig. 3, of those who favored the intermarriage of their children, 78 % was non-practicing and 22 % was practicing. Thus, the majority of those who favor intermarriage are non-practicing Turks. Many respondents who approve intermarriage put emphasis on such values as honesty, being respectful and tolerant of other faiths. They hold that good personal traits are prior to other characteristics such as religion, nationality, or race. Characteristic of this feeling are the comments of a 56year-old non-practicing respondent: “First of all, as a father, and as someone who is married, I would care about the happiness in their lives rather than their preferences on nationality or religion. In my opinion, in marriages, as long as people respect one another continues, as long as they are happy.. for me, religion, nationality, language does not matter.” A practicing respondent expressed similar opinions, but also hoped that those good traits would help him/her to learn about Islam and appreciate it: “The most important thing is the choice of my child, I cannot choose that. But my heart will be with the one whose character I like most. This means honesty. Because if the good character was not established until that age, after that, it is hard to establish. If he is honest, open to learn different things, I believe that he or she will appreciate the religion, too.” In this sense, prioritizing the good character is common among all respondents. However, a difference in perceptions is that many practicing respondents presume that those good values are compatible with religious values, specifically Islamic values. Moreover, religion, according to many, is the most influential means of preservation of good morals; or as some maintain, religion itself is the source of such good morals. The comments of a 32-year-old practicing consultant are characteristic of this presumption: “If he has a God feeling in his heart, he would be faithful to my daughter and respect her; that is what the religion says, like respecting to your family and respecting your wife, if he knows all those things nothing bad will happen.” On the other hand, for some, nothing would matter, as they think marriage is about “falling in love” before everything else rather than choosing. In this regard, even if they themselves do not prefer someone from another culture, the criteria for their children is different as they will be raised in this culture. A 30-year-old non-practicing respondent indicates this as follows: “I didn’t grow up here, and I wouldn’t prefer myself, but if I would fall in love then I would marry. My child is gonna grow up here and he or she will not be as

Religion and Assimilation Among Turkish Muslim Immigrants

499

Turkish as I am. There is gonna be some depreciation in their Turkish values. At the end I don’t think my preferences will be that important, people fall in love.” According to this respondent, preserving Turkish values, which are also interrelated with Muslim values, is the intention of the first generation Turkish immigrants who were raised in Turkey. But their children, who are born and raised in America, will not aim to preserve Turkishness and “marry a Turkish guy” as they, themselves, are not “Turkish enough.” Yet, evidence from other respondents, who are raised in America, suggests otherwise. In a practicing female’s words: “Even though I grew up here, I talked Turkish. In my family we always interacted with Turkish people. Like I said, I wanted the person whoever I marry to fit in my family.” Furthermore, according to this practicing Muslim, even a Muslim from a different culture would not be a good fit for her since: “I don’t think he would fit in as much, of course they (her family) would still love him but he would be just a husband because whenever we get together in my family, it is like mostly Turkish, the food is Turkish, the activities whatever, you know, there is a lot of culture even though there is the religion, so if he is not aware of that culture, I don’t think he would fit in as much as a Turkish guy.” Notably, a tendency to prefer to marry a Turk is prevalent almost among all respondents who maintain that intermarriage of their children is acceptable. This arose as a pattern during the interviews. Specifically, when I asked about their preferences regarding marriage of their children, many respondents asked if they had an option both for Turk and Muslim together. When there was not an option, they felt that they had to pick. Therefore, when categorizing their responses, I preferred calling those responses, which were in favor, “acceptable”, since the majority of the respondents find it acceptable but still will not prefer. Accordingly, a 35-year-old nonpracticing respondent who also has a positive attitude towards intermarriage elaborates on her preference for marrying a Turk as follows: “There are some commonalities like communication, coming from the same culture and sharing the same history. I would prefer my husband as someone who was raised in the standard Turkish family structure, where individualism is not the top priority. Rather, parents are given the priority, where people would not just think about themselves but think about the whole family, a collective family and where love among family members is established.” Implicit and somewhat explicit in her statement is a contrast between American and Turkish family structures. All respondents, in this study, regardless of their religious practice, expressed similar opinions about the family structure and family ties in America in contrast to Turkey. As such, Turks believe that they are more family oriented and more closely tied to each other than families in the USA. In sum, the majority of Turks in Houston, even those who are in favor of intermarriage prefer their children to marry someone Turkish and Muslim, as they believe culture matters in such an intimate relationship and that family ties are

500

E. Bulut, H.R. Ebaugh

stronger among Turks than among Americans. Although many valorize good morals as the essential criteria for some, especially practicing respondents, believe that it is religion that could preserve good morals in people.

Discussion Upon further analysis of the comments of the respondents in this study, our research revealed three major patterns of assimilation into American society: selective assimilation, construction of a defensive identity, and disassociation with Arabs. These three patterns are also in line with the three functions of religion Hirschman described: refuge, respect and resources. Moreover, applicability of patterns to practicing and non-practicing Turkish Muslims varies in degrees such that while first two patterns dominantly apply to practicing Turks, the third one applies to both groups. Selective Assimilation In order to underline the complexity of the assimilation process for new immigrants, recent research has introduced the concept of modes of incorporation. One of these modes is selective assimilation, which associates social and economic advancement with preservation of the immigrant community’s values (Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Berry et al. 2006). In a similar vein, Mattson (2003), in her study of Muslims in the USA, argued that selective engagement is the most common form of adaptation for the majority of Muslims in America. Likewise, the findings of our study suggest that Turkish Muslims may be following a selective path of assimilation. This is most evident in their responses as they differentiate between “good sides” and “bad sides” of life in America. As far as the “good sides” of the American culture is concerned, like “being hard-working, the quality of professional work life and kind attitudes of people in general”, majority of practicing respondents expressed that they appreciate life in America. Most importantly, almost all the practicing respondents in our study reported that they feel more comfortable in the USA practicing their religion. The most desirable aspect of life in America for the majority of practicing respondents is perceived differences in regard to the absence of regulations that prevent them from practicing their religion. In this sense, democracy in America functions as a resource for practicing Turks in their assimilation processes. Although they appreciate many aspects of American culture and Americans, they are still concerned about the “gangs, drugs, premarital sex, alcohol, etc.” as well as losing their own culture. In this respect, while non-practicing express concerns about “gangs and drugs”, especially for their children who are born and raised in America, two thirds of the practicing respondents also mention religious concerns such as “premarital sex and drinking alcohol” which, they believe, is detrimental to their Muslim identity. This selective path, that is the differentiation between negative and positive features of American culture, is evident in a 32-year-old non-practicing female’s response: “I don’t want my kids to be fully adapted to this culture. If we can grasp the best of the culture and leave some of the bad sides, then it will be

Religion and Assimilation Among Turkish Muslim Immigrants

501

okay. I don’t want my kids to get used to drugs, for example, to get involved in some criminal activities; I want my kids to be honest, trustworthy, and kind. I would like to see them very hard working, and working in a timely manner. These are the things that we can get from the American culture.” On the other hand, practicing respondents are concerned that assimilating to this culture might lead to “losing certain cultural and religious values.” A practicing instructor expresses her concerns as follows: “..for me it (assimilation) will be like losing your language first thing, losing your religious values, drinking, not practicing, all partying, not having a strong family, but mostly it reminds me of a negative thing. It sounds negative to me…”. Overall, practicing and non-practicing respondents alike, accept assimilation conditionally, both for themselves and for their children who are or will be born and raised in America. While they believe that assimilation is an inevitable process for their children as they already “sing Texan songs, know American history but don’t know Turkish history at all,” they are still concerned about the “bad sides” of the same culture. This pattern is especially evident in the responses of practicing Muslims. While they appreciate many aspects of American culture, they prefer a path which allows them to selectively adopt certain values and retain their own culture and identity. Here is how a practicing female respondent defines assimilation: “living comfortably in the society with your values, also being affected by some aspects of the culture, but not in all aspects. We don’t disturb others, we try to live our private lives but stay connected with the society, appreciate others, and understand that this is their way of life. They do whatever they do, you do whatever you want, but there is a connection. You are not living alone, you have friends, you have neighbors, you become friends but you do not lose your identity.” Above comment illustrates that for many practicing respondents religion becomes like a shelter, in other words, it functions as refuge, which protects them, specifically their children from the “negative influences” of the society they live in. Another respondent, a practicing woman, is similarly concerned about assimilation of her children into a society which has different religious and cultural values than hers, yet still hopeful about passing her own religious values to them. In her own words: “They will be like Americans, they will know as much as every American knows about America, but in America there are Americans who live religiously, I hope, my great grandchildren will have those religious values that I have.” Overall, reports of respondents in this study give further support that Turkish immigrants, especially practicing Muslims, follow a selective assimilation pattern that aids in the process of their adaptation to life in America.

502

E. Bulut, H.R. Ebaugh

Construction of a Defensive Identity Findings of many studies of Muslims in the USA reveal that the tragic attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have complicated the process of Muslim assimilation in America (Haddad et al. 2003; Peek 2005). Following the attacks, public hostility toward Islam and Muslims reached a climax such that, in the public mind, Muslim and terrorist were almost synonymous, a fact evident in a survey conducted a year after the attacks which revealed that negative perceptions of Muslims were significantly more common than toward any other non-western group (Wuthnow 2005). In this regard, although we did not have any specific question about the tragic attacks on 9/11, our respondents repeatedly referred to the events and informed us that “after 9/11, everything has changed.” Portes and Rumbaut (2001) contend that immigrants develop defensive identities to counter confrontations with an adverse mainstream. Accordingly, accounts of our interviewees in this study reveal that events after 9/11 shaped the Turkish Muslim community with Muslims becoming intensely conscious of being Muslim. Even nonpracticing Muslims felt pressured to articulate a position as a response to the questioning of Americans. In this respect, respondents in both groups expressed the fact that stereotypes about Muslims forced them to explore their religious texts and traditions to counter such assumptions. Furthermore, according to Coleman and James (1988)), identification with one’s own group can be a powerful motivational force. Our study confirms this as over half of the practicing Turks reported that correcting public misconceptions about Islam was the most important motivation in their language acquisition. They felt that their religion is “misunderstood” and “not known enough” in America. In this respect, they believed good communication and “genuine dialogue” will help to improve those negative images. Although good communication was a goal for many respondents, both practicing and non-practicing, its necessity was more strongly emphasized by practicing Turks than non-practicing ones. One of the reasons for this might be that practicing Turks felt much more “misunderstood” than their non-practicing counterparts. The comments of a 34-year-old practicing respondent, who came to the USA with a very low level of English yet tried very hard to improve it and eventually, came to speak fluently, reflect these feelings in the following way: “If there is one thing I hate the most, it is being misunderstood. And the second time I came to America, it was right after September 11. Particularly, after 9/11, you know, all the negativity about Muslims..So, I think it gave me an impulse, because I didn’t like to be misunderstood. I really believe that, if people know (about Islam), they will be a lot different than they are now. I knew that I did not have anything to hide, or to be ashamed of. And I am proud of my religion.” Reports of our respondents confirm that religious identities are not static, but are constructed as they are defined, challenged and rejected by the receiving society. For many Turks, particularly practicing respondents, Muslimness became a master statusdetermining trait (Hughes 1984) specifically after 9/11. Defensive identity helps them in their efforts to correct public misconceptions and to retain a positive self-perception. In this sense, religion functions as respect for Turkish immigrants as it gives them a sense of self-worth, also as resources, as it motivates them in their language acquisition.

Religion and Assimilation Among Turkish Muslim Immigrants

503

Disassociation with Arabs Another pattern evident in this study is that disassociation with other Muslims, specifically with Arabs, is common for the majority of both practicing and nonpracticing respondents. This is obvious in respondents’ attitudes toward marrying a non-Turkish Muslim from another culture. Many, even those who are in favor of intermarriage, prefer their children to marry someone both Turkish and Muslim as opposed to a “Pakistani Muslim” or “Indian Muslim,” as they believe culture matters in such an intimate relationship. Furthermore, many practicing and non-practicing respondents, alike, find it hard to differentiate being a Turk and being a Muslim. Characteristic of this are the comments of a 38-year-old non-practicing respondent: “I really do not know anyone who is Turkish but not Muslim is it possible? I would prefer someone Turkish and Muslim, I would not, for example, prefer a Pakistani Muslim.” Likewise, many respondents also found it hard to differentiate being a Turk and being a Muslim, and further expressed feelings of disassociation with other Muslim groups. In this regard, religion becomes the medium of ethnic assertion for Turkish immigrants in the USA as it allows them to disassociate with other Muslims. In their accounts, Turks were different because they had a “more moderate understanding of Islam,” they had a secular government which both practicing and non-practicing alike were proud of, and they were “more clean.” Mattson (2003) argues that Muslims in the USA use several different theological frameworks within Islam to negotiate their relationship to American identity. These include both paradigms of resistance and paradigms of selective engagement. Our study reveals that Turkish Muslims prefer paradigms of engagement as they frequently refer to discourses of modernity (e.g., moderate Islam, secular government) in their accounts and consistently disassociate themselves from other Muslims as a way of proving they have better resources to fit in America. Kurien (1998), in her study of Hindus in America observes that Hindus use Hinduism in America to secure a place at the American multicultural table. Our findings are in line with her observations. Overall, comments of our respondents show how Islam helps a group of Turkish immigrants ease the transition between being a Turk and becoming American by enabling them to assert pride in their Turkish Muslim heritage as a way of claiming a position for themselves in America. In this sense, religion becomes a resource for Turkish immigrants in their adaptation to the life in the USA.

Conclusions In this study, an effort was made to examine the role of religion in the assimilation of Turkish immigrants in Houston. There is little literature on the relationship of Muslim religiosity and assimilation to life in America. What exists is a plethora of studies demonstrating the importance of mosques in preserving ethnic and religious identity among American Muslims. In this respect, this study aims to contribute to the body of literature on Muslims in the USA by introducing six criteria of religious observance in its methodology, instead of using mosque attendance as a basic measure of religiosity.

504

E. Bulut, H.R. Ebaugh

Future studies and policies aimed at improving Muslim integration might benefit from using this methodology as it allows studying assimilation patterns of practicing but not regularly mosque attending Muslim men as well as many Muslim women who traditionally are not encouraged to participate in regular daily prayers at mosque. The findings of this study reveal that while Turks, in general, are fairly well assimilated to life in the USA, there are some differences between practicing and non-practicing Turkish Muslims. According to our findings, practicing Turks are more likely to report a high degree of self-reported assimilation to life in the USA as well as higher language acquisition than non-practicing Turks. Yet, they express less supportive attitudes toward intermarriage and are less likely to make friends outside of their Turkish Muslim social networks. Higher self reports of assimilation among practicing Turkish Muslims, along with high levels of human capital and language acquisition, suggest that, for some groups, a selective path may facilitate positive adaptation to life in America. Moreover, subsequent analyses suggest that length of stay in the USA is the most important factor in predicting practicing respondents’ attitudes towards intermarriage. This is in line with the general principle of assimilation theory that as length of stay increases, immigrants assimilate more. Overall, the findings of this study suggest that religion plays the dual role of both facilitating assimilation as well as preserving ethnicity among Turkish immigrants. Again, the refuge and respect functions of religion that Hirschman (2004) describes, not only help Turkish immigrants in Houston retain their old values but also promote feelings of assimilation to this country. Hence, the beliefs and practices carried out by Turkish Muslims can be expected to be a key force guiding the character of their long-term assimilation into American society. Thus, this study shows that assimilation of an immigrant group is not necessarily hindered by adherence to a culture (of which religion is the most integral part) different from the “core American culture” as some earlier writings on assimilation posited. Hopefully, this paper has raised issues regarding the role of religious practice in the assimilation of Turkish Muslims into the USA and can serve as a heuristic basis for further research.

Appendix

Table 2 Socio-demographics characteristics Characteristics

Religious practice Practicing

Non-practicing

Total

# (%)

# (%)

# (%)

Age groups 18–25

2 (5 %)

0 (0 %)

2 (5 %)

26–40

14 (35 %)

13 (32.5 %)

27 (67.5 %)

41–55

3 (7.5 %)

3 (7.5 %)

6 (15 %)

56+

1 (2.5 %)

4 (10 %)

5 (12.5 %)

Religion and Assimilation Among Turkish Muslim Immigrants

505

Table 2 (continued) Characteristics

Religious practice Practicing

Non-practicing

Total

# (%)

# (%)

# (%)

Female

13 (32.5 %)

11 (27 %)

24 (60 %)

Male

7 (17.5 %)

9 (22.5 %)

16 (40 %)

3 (7.5 %)

6 (15 %)

9 (22.5 %)

Gender

Marital status Single Married with Turk

14 (35 %)

10 (25 %)

24 (60 %)

Intermarried

3 (7.5 %)

4 (10 %)

7 (17.5 %)

Primary/elementary

1 (2.5 %)

1 (2.5 %)

2 (5 %)

High school

3 (7.5 %)

2 (5 %)

5 (12.5 %)

College

9 (22.5 %)

7 (17.5 %)

16 (40 %)

Master

5 (12.5 %)

8 (20 %)

13 (32.5 %)

PhD

2 (5 %)

2 (5 %)

4 (10 %)

Education

Employment Professional

7 (17.5 %)

8 (20 %)

15 (37.5 %)

Self-employed

4 (10 %)

1 (2.5 %)

5 (12.5 %)

Housewife

4 (10 %)

0 (0 %)

4 (10 %)

Retired

0 (0 %)

3 (7.5 %)

3 (7.5 %)

Grad. student

4 (10 %)

7 (17.5 %)

11 (27 %)

Student

1 (2.5 %)

1 (2.5 %)

2 (5 %)

3 (7.5 %)

4 (10 %)

7 (17.5 %) 7 (17.5 %)

Annual income 15–24,99 K 25–34,99 K

4 (10 %)

3 (7.5 %)

35–44,99 K

5 (12.5 %)

2 (5 %)

7 (17.5 %)

45–54,99 K

0 (0 %)

3 (7.5 %)

7 (17.5 %)

55–64,99 K

1 (2.5 %)

3 (7.5 %)

4 (10 %)

65–74,99 K

4 (10 %)

1 (2.5 %)

5 (12.5 %)

75–84,99 K

2 (5 %)

0 (0 %)

2 (5 %)

85 K +

1 (2.5 %)

4 (10 %)

5 (12.5 %)

1 (2.5 %)

3 (7.5 %)

4 (10 %)

Length of stay in the US 0–2 years 3–5 years

7 (17.5 %)

8 (20 %)

15 (37.5 %)

6–10 years

3 (7.5 %)

2 (5 %)

5 (12.5 %)

11–20 years

9 (22.5 %)

3 (7.5 %)

12 (30 %)

21+years

0 (0 %)

4 (10 %)

4 (10 %) 8 (20 %)

Length of stay in Houston 0–2 years

4 (10 %)

4 (10 %)

3–5 years

9 (22.5 %)

8 (20 %)

17 (42.5 %)

6–10 years

3 (7.5 %)

3 (7.5 %)

7 (16 %)

506

E. Bulut, H.R. Ebaugh

Table 2 (continued) Characteristics

Religious practice Practicing

Non-practicing

Total

# (%)

# (%)

# (%)

11–20 years

4 (10 %)

3 (7.5 %)

7 (17.5 %)

21+years

2 (0 %)

2 (5 %)

2 (5 %)

References Alkhazraji, & Khalid, M. (1997). Immigrants and cultural adaptation in the American workplace: a study of Muslim employees. New York: Garland Publishing. Bagby, I. (2011). The American mosque 2011: report I from the US mosque study project 2011, basic characteristics of the American mosque and attitudes of mosque leaders. Washington, DC: The Council on American Islamic Relations, January 2012, (p. 5). Published online at http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/ The-American-Mosque-2011-web.pdf. Berry, J., Phinney, J., et al. (2006). Immigrant Youth in Cultural Transition: Acculturation, Identity, and Adaptation across National Contexts. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Bowen, & John, R. (2004). “Does French Islam Have Borders? Dilemmas of Domestication in a Global Religious Field.”. American Anthropologist, 106(1), 43–55. Coleman, J. S. 1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Sociology, vol.94 Supplement. Durkheim, E. (1997 [1893]). The division of labor in society (trans: Coser, L. A.). New York: Free Press. Ebaugh, H. R., & Chafetz, J. S. (2000). Religion and the New Immigrants. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Elkholy, A. (1966). The Arab Moslems in the United States. New Haven: College and University Press. Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press. Grabowski, J. J. (2005). Prospects and Challenges: The Study of Early Turkish Immigration to the United States. Journal of American Ethnic History, (Fall), pp: 85–100. Haddad, Y. Y., & Lummis, A. T. (1987). Islamic Values in the United States: A Comparative Study. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haddad, Y. Y., & Esposito, J. L. (1998). Muslims on the Americanization Path? Edited by Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad and John L. Esposito. New York: Oxford University Press. Haddad, Y. Y., Smith, J. I., & Esposito, J. L. (2003). Becoming American-Religion, Identity, and Institution Building in the American Mosaic. Pp.1-19 in Religion and Immigration. Edited by Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, Jane I. Smith, and John L. Esposito. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. 19 Hirschman, C. (2004). “The Role of Religion in the Origins and Adaptation of Immigrant Groups in the United States.”. International Migration Review, 38(3), 1206–1233. Hughes, E. C. (1984). The sociological eye: Selected papers. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Khalid, M. A. (1997). Immigrants and Cultural Adaptation in the American Workplace: A Study of Muslim Employees. New York: Garland Pub. Kurien, P. (1998). Becoming American by Becoming Hindu: Indian Americans Take Their Place at the Multicultural Table”, in Gatherings in the Diaspora: Religious Communities and the New Immigration, edited by Warner. Stephen R. and Judith G. Wittner. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Mattson, I. (2003). “How Muslims Use Islamic Paradigms To Define America”, in Becoming American: Immigration and Religious Life in the United States”, eds. John Esposito, Yvonne Haddad and Jane I. Smith. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Park, R. E. & Burgess, E. W. (1921). Introduction to the Science of Sociology Chicago:Univ. of Chicago Press Peek, L. (2005). Becoming Muslim: The Development of a Religious Identity. Sociology of Religion, vol., 66(3), 215–242. Pew Research Center Study. (2011). Muslim Americans: No Sign of Growth in Alienation or Support for Extremism (retrieved online at: http://www.peoplepress.org/files/legacy-pdf/Muslim%20American% 20Report%2010-02-12%20fix.pdf).

Religion and Assimilation Among Turkish Muslim Immigrants

507

Philips, B. T., & Fishman, S. B. (2006). Ethnic Capital and Intermarriage: A Case Study of American Jews. Sociology of Religion, 67(4), 487–505. Portes, A. (1997). Immigration Theory for a New Century: Some Problems and Opportunities. International Migration Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, Special Issue: Immigrant Adaptation and Native-Born Responses in the Making of Americans (Winter, 1997), pp. 799–825. Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second-generation: Segmented Assimilation and its variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530, 74–96. Portes, A. & Rumbaut, R. G. (2001). Legacies: the story of the immigrant second generation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Portes, A. & Rumbaut, R. G. (2006). Immigrant America: A Portrait. University of California Press Roy, O. (2004). Globalized Islam: The search for a new Ummah. New York: Columbia University Press. Smith, T. L. (1978). Religion and Ethnicity in America. The American Historical Review, 83, 1155–1185. Warner, S. R., & Wittner, J. G. (1998). Gatherings in Diaspora: Religious Communities and the New Immigration. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Wuthnow, R. (2005). America and the Challenges of Religious Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wuthnow, & Hackett. (2003). “The Social Integration of Practitioners of Non-Western Religions in the United States”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(4), 651–667.