The term‘integration’ ( from the Latin integratio) means ‘the renewal or restoration of a whole’.[1] A distinction can be made between system integration and social integration. In social integration – which is the focus of the following discussion – the sociologist and philosopher of science Hartmut Esser identifies four dimensions: the cultural dimension of acquiring knowledge and skills; the structural dimension of placement in roles, for example within the education system or on the labour market; the social dimension of establishing contacts and social relationships; and the emotional dimension of identification.

In the social sciences, the term ‘integration’ was first used in the first half of the 20th century by sociologists of the Chicago School in studies of communities from a migration history perspective. There, it was used as an umbrella term for the two competing objectives regarding the settlement of immigrants, namely the ‘melting pot’ ( the blending of the cultures of immigrant groups with the culture of society as a whole) and the ‘salad bowl’ (the continued existence of distinct cultures of immigrant groups within society as a whole), or, in other words, assimilation and ethnic pluralism.

The concept of assimilation, which dominated in the USA, was criticised during the civil rights movements of the 1960s and supplanted by the concept of pluralism; the term ‘integration’ was now often used instead of the term ‘assimilation’ – although the latter was still effectively what was meant.

In Germany, the Chicago School’s concept of ‘integration’ was first adopted in the 1950s in studies of local communities, and subsequently also in studies on displaced persons and non-German refugees.^[2]

Following the admission of foreign workers into the Federal Republic, the term became more widely used in the 1970s. In line with developments in the USA, it also benefited here from the increasingly critical assessment of the concept of assimilation, which acquired a pejorative connotation – one that persists to this day – as‘forced Germanisation’brought about by coercive integration policies.^[3]

Towards the end of the 1980s, the term ‘integration’ also became established in research into Germans who had fled or been displaced as a result of the Second World War, replacing the term‘assimilation’.

Particular mention should be made here of the studies by sociologists Paul Lüttinger and Marion Frantzioch, published in 1986 and 1987 respectively. Lüttinger demonstrated that, even after 40 years, economic integration had not yet been successfully completed and that the positive assessments and the concept of ‘Eingliederung’ were therefore oversimplified.^[4] Further research showed that the assessments in the studies of the 1950s were based too heavily on consumer goods regarded as status symbols, such as cars, motorbikes, televisions, home ownership and property in general.^[5]

Marion Frantzioch used the concept of integration as the basis for her research.^[6] In addition to economic, social and cultural participation, she now also focused on emotional participation, taking into account the reciprocal nature of the integration process, which brought about changes in the behaviour of both displaced persons and refugees as well as the local population, and could thus also lead to a new social culture as a whole. In doing so, she emphasised that the partial restoration of the culture of their homeland had facilitated integration.^[7] This finding was in line with the intentions of the displaced persons’ associations, which were now able to view the preservation of their ‘ethnic group identity’ as an important contribution to integration.

With hindsight, this was a sign of a fundamental conflict, the sort that is now being played out between the political camps of multiculturalists and the proponents of assimilation theory.

“There is unrest in the migration research community,” was how the Berlin sociologist Steffen Mau summarised the situation in 2016.^[8] For some time now, there has been a divide between those who favour assimilation and those who see the future in multiculturalism or a post-migrant society.

The controversy was sparked in 2004 by Hartmut Esser’s essay *What alternative to assimilation is there, actually? *^[9] His answer was that there was no alternative to the structural assimilation of migrants within the education system and in the primary labour market. The opposing side – as Steffen Mau explained – assumes that the model of a closed and homogeneous national society is obsolete, and that a dominant German national culture is neither recognisable nor desirable. The focus must now be primarily on the recognition of difference and group rights, as well as on the plurality of identities.

Both sides lament the lack of generally accepted definitions for the terms ‘integration’ and‘assimilation’, and note that people often speak of integration when they actually mean assimilation. Research findings on how German displaced persons and refugees have settled into their new homeland whilst simultaneously maintaining a spiritual and emotional connection to their old homeland can help resolve this dilemma. They show that integration is not a one-way street, but that the academic concepts developed decades ago – such as the dual attachment to the old and new homelands, which each individual could continually rebalance for themselves, or – going beyond this – multiple or hybrid forms of integration, offer perspectives that have so far been utilised far too rarely.^[10]

• Volker Ackermann: Integration: Concept, Mission Statements, Problems. In: Klaus J. Bade (ed.): A New Home in the West. Displaced Persons, Refugees, Repatriates. Münster 1990, pp. 14–36.
• Ibid.: The ‘Real’ Refugee. German Displaced Persons and Refugees from the GDR 1945–1961. Osnabrück 1995.
• Klaus J. Bade: Improvised Integration or the Federal Republic as a Country of Immigration. Problems and Perspectives. In: Ibid.: Social-Historical Migration Research. Edited by Michael Bommes and Jochen Oltmer. Göttingen 2004, pp. 389–415.
• Hartmut Esser: What alternative to ‘assimilation’ actually exists? In: Klaus J. Bade (ed.): Migration – Integration – Education. Fundamental Questions and Problem Areas. Osnabrück 2004 (IMIS Contributions 23), pp. 41–59.
• Ibid.: Migration, Language and Integration. Berlin 2006.
• Marion Frantzioch: The Displaced. Obstacles, Driving Forces and Pathways to their Integration in the Federal Republic of Germany. With an annotated bibliography. Berlin 1987.
• Silke Hans: Theories of Migrant Integration – Current Status and Developments. In: Heinz Ulrich Brinkmann, Martina Sauer (eds.): Germany as an Immigration Society. Development and Current Status of Integration. Wiesbaden 2016, pp. 23–50.
• Marita Krauss (ed.): Integrations. Displaced Persons in the German States after 1945. Berlin 2006.
• Paul Lüttinger: The Myth of the Rapid Integration of Displaced Persons and Refugees in the Federal Republic of Germany up to 1971. In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie 15/1 (1986), pp. 20–36.
• Ibid. (in collaboration with Rita Rossmann): The Integration of Displaced Persons. An Empirical Analysis. Frankfurt am Main, New York 1989.
• Gert Pickel, Oliver Decker, Steffen Kailitz, Antje Röder, Julia Schulze Wessel (eds.): Handbook of Integration. Wiesbaden 2020.
• Hans-Uwe Otto, Mark S. Schrödter (eds.): Social Work in a Migration Society. Multiculturalism – Neo-Assimilation – Transnationality. Lahnstein 2006 (= Neue Praxis. Journal of Social Work, Social Pedagogy and Social Policy. Special Issue 8).
• Ludger Pries: Participation in a Migration Society: Between Assimilation and the Abolition of the Concept of Integration. In: IMIS Contributions 17 (2015), pp. 7–35.
• Ulrich Tolksdorf: Phases of cultural integration among refugees and ethnic German repatriates. In: Klaus J. Bade (ed.): A New Home in the West. Displaced Persons, Refugees, Ethnic German Repatriates. Münster 1990, pp. 106–127.

• Ute Koch: Theories of integration and their influence on integration policy. In: Federal Agency for Civic Education: Migration Dossier. 28 May 2018. URL: www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/migration/kurzdossiers/269373/integrationstheorien
• Marc Phillip Nogueira: Debates on integration and integration policy. In: Federal Agency for Civic Education: Migration Dossier. 14 May 2018. URL: www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/migration/dossier-migration/247578/integrationspolitik

[1] Karl-Heinz Hillmann: Dictionary of Sociology, 5th ed., Stuttgart 2007, p. 383.

[2] See, for example, Hans Harmsen: The Integration of Stateless Foreigners and Non-German Refugees in West Germany. Distributed as a typescript in Hamburg in 1956; published in print in Augsburg in 1958.

[3] For the historical background, see Klaus J. Bade, who as early as 1983 did not rule out ‘negative integration’ (Improvised Integration or the Federal Republic as a Country of Immigration: Problems and Perspectives. In: Ibid.: Social-Historical Migration Research. Edited by Michael Bommes and Jochen Oltmer. Göttingen 2004, pp. 389–415, here p. 408).

[4] Paul Lüttinger: The Myth of the Rapid Integration of Displaced Persons and Refugees in the Federal Republic of Germany up to 1971. In: Zeitschrift für Soziologie 15 (1986), pp. 20–36.

[5] See, for example, Helga Grebing: ‘On the Concept of Integration’. In: Rainer Schulze, Doris von der Brelie-Lewien, Helga Grebing (eds.): Refugees and Displaced Persons in West German Post-War History. A Review of Research and Perspectives for Future Research. Hildesheim 1987, pp. 302–304, here p. 303.

[6] Marion Frantzioch: The Displaced Persons. Obstacles, Driving Forces and Paths to their Integration in the Federal Republic of Germany. With an annotated bibliography. Berlin 1987.

[7] Ibid., pp. 194 and 228.

[8] Steffen Mau: ‘Assimilation or Multiculturalism? Migration researchers debate integration’. In: Tagesspiegel. 25 July 2016, URL: www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/migrationsforscher-streiten-ueber-integration-assimilation-oder-multikulti/13919640.html (7 October 2021).

[9] Hartmut Esser: What alternative to ‘assimilation’ actually exists? In: Klaus J. Bade (ed.): Migration – Integration – Education. Fundamental Questions and Problem Areas. Osnabrück 2004 (IMIS Contributions 23), pp. 41–59.

[10] See Angelika Hohenstein: Reception and Integration of Refugees in the District of Dannenberg 1945–1948. In: Dieter Brosius, Angelika Hohenstein: On the Situation of Refugees in North-Eastern Lower Saxony 1945–1948. Hildesheim 1985, pp. 87–181, here pp. 159ff. and Marita Krauss: Integrations. Questions, Theses, Perspectives on Comparative Research into Displaced Persons, in: Ibid. (eds.): Integrations. Displaced Persons in the German States after 1945. Göttingen 2008, pp. 9–21, here p. 13.

Bernhard Parisius: Integration. In: Online Encyclopaedia on the Culture and History of Germans in Eastern Europe, 2021. URL: ome-lexikon.uni-oldenburg.de/p32725 (accessed 14 October 2021).