Abstract
Understanding the complex psychological processes that underlie post-migration experiences can assist those settling into a new land. We propose a conceptual framework that examines two distinct emotional experiences—ambiguous loss of homeland (ALH) and relative satisfaction (RS) between the country of origin (CO) and the host country. This framework emerges from interviews with 55 Spanish-speaking immigrants to the United States and results in four quadrants: (1) “pulled there” (feels loss of homeland strongly and prefers CO to the United States); (2) “neither here nor there” (does not feel loss of homeland strongly, however, prefers CO to the United States); (3) “mostly here” (does not feel loss of homeland strongly and prefers the United States); and (4) “here but pulled there” (feels loss of homeland strongly, however, prefers the United States). The conceptual framework of ALH and RS contributes to the immigration literature and is not exclusive to Latinos, but to the growing global immigrant and refugee population.
Keywords
Ambiguous loss theory refers to a type of trauma that defies closure because of its chronic ambiguity and uncertainty (Boss, 2006). Previous work has examined ambiguous loss in those who have families with missing members (Boss, 2002b; Robins, 2010), and children in foster care (Samuels, 2009). Here, ambiguous loss theory is extended to those who have experienced loss of homeland. Ambiguous loss of homeland (ALH) refers to the immigrant and refugee experience of keeping their country of origin (CO) psychologically present after their physical departure (Perez, 2016). The ALH concept, and its effects on adaptation to a new land, conceivably, extends to immigrants and refugees worldwide. For simplicity, we will use the term immigrants to characterize anyone who left their CO and is living in another regardless of their reasons for migration. As such, we include refugees, asylum seekers, undocumented migrants, and other statuses under the term immigrants unless otherwise noted. Despite the growing awareness of immigrants around the globe, this phenomenon is understudied. The ALH conceptual framework presented in this article applies ambiguous loss ideas to the immigrants’ experience of leaving the homeland while remaining connected to it even as one adjusts to living in the host society.
Upon migrating, many leave behind family and friends without clear answers about when or how they will be reunited; this leads to intense stress. These immigrants leave the homeland, with its familiar places and culture, and possibly the home of their ancestors. For some, following their departure from the homeland, there is a sense of ambiguous loss, and uncertainty persists for decades or even a lifetime. Ambiguous loss (AL) may present itself as confusion about whether to maintain hope for an eventual return or to grieve the loss of a homeland they will never again see. Living away from their CO, while continuing to mourn it all through their adaptation to a new land, is the subject of this work. Although there is much research literature on acculturation, the complex process that results when groups of different cultures come into contact (Redfield, Linton, & Herskovits, 1936), the focus has been primarily on the immigrants’ ability to adjust to life in a new country. Interestingly, within the vast acculturation and related literature describing immigrants’ experiences, AL has yet to be incorporated. As the immigration experience also includes adjusting to life without one’s homeland, it seems important to investigate the impact of ALH on the acculturation experience.
To extend the development of the ALH concept, we began by exploring the experiences of Latinos who had migrated to the United States of America. Although this population migrated from many different countries for diverse motives and varied conditions, they share a common language and culture, allowing comparisons across their experiences. Drawing on a review of the literature and data collected, we propose an ALH conceptual framework that incorporates both the experience of ALH and relative satisfaction (RS) between the CO and host country—in this case, the United States.
AL has been researched among populations who experience psychological distress after losing a relationship due to external circumstances (e.g., war, adoption, custody changes; Boss, 2006). Ongoing confusion or internal conflict about what has been lost is a key part of the AL experience. In the case of loss due to war, adoption, or custody changes, it may not be clear when a reunion will ever occur. Drawing on AL theory, we explain the continuing psychological attachment to the homeland that many immigrants have. This attachment can produce pain in the present because of uncertainties about when or how they will ever regain their losses.
Haunting questions such as “When will I be able to return home again?” “What would life be like if I had never left?” and “Do I even want to go back home?” can fuel suffering for lengthy periods. In contrast with the idea of giving up the older customs and traditions of the homeland during the acculturation process, some immigrants remain attached to their CO. Such devotion may affect how successfully an immigrant incorporates aspects of the new society. Immigrants who are unsure how long they will be staying in the host country may not know how much to invest in the new host culture. As ALH suffering can compound stress when adjusting to a new culture, it is useful to consider its role in the acculturation process.
The experience of leaving the homeland can have adverse effects on well-being. These effects can evoke profound feelings of homesickness (Matt, 2011), loss and mourning (Ainslie, 1998), complex emotional and physical disturbances (Rosbrook & Schweitzer, 2010), acculturative stress (Berry, 1998; Umaña-Taylor & Alfaro, 2009), historical loss and trauma (Ehlers, Gizer, Gilder, Ellingson, & Yehuda, 2013; Mohatt, Thompson, Thai, & Tebes, 2014), and migratory grief (Achotegui, 2016). All of this literature informs our work.
Considering an ecosystem approach, the broader economic, political, historical, and social context of both sending and receiving countries is also useful—even as it is hard to incorporate into a single conceptual framework. Unwelcoming policies and attitudes in the receiving country add to the pain of AL and acculturation of immigrants. For example, exclusionary immigration policies toward certain groups, countries, or religions can lead to a desire to remain more, rather than less, attached to one’s cultural group or homeland (Yinger, 1986). Drawing on interviews with Spanish-speaking immigrants living in the Northeast United States, the importance of sending and receiving country factors (e.g., economic, political, social) is incorporated into the ALH narrative.
This literature review centers on ALH for individuals and families, nostalgia and homesickness, acculturation, and RS between the CO and United States. This review, along with interviews conducted with the research participants, allowed United States to integrate ALH and RS in our conceptual framework graphically and descriptively. This article synthesizes the conceptual framework for ALH to allow later studies on its effect on post-migration stress, coping, and acculturation. This conceptual framework can assist in the development of measures, and make it possible to unpack the relationship between ALH and other factors affecting well-being. Moreover, a better understanding of how different immigrant groups experience ALH can lead to sensitive and targeted interventions for vulnerable populations.
AL
Because ALH is a new concept, we begin by reviewing the existing literature on other types of ambiguous losses as they relate to immigrants and their families. Thus, part of this review examines the effect of AL on families.
AL Theory
Rooted in stress and coping theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and informed by systems theory (Boss, 1999, 2006), the theory of AL offers a wide lens from which to view the experiences of immigrants adapting to a new land while remembering or even mourning the one from which they migrated. Pauline Boss (2006) argued that AL is distinguished by its unclear and indeterminate nature, and distinguishes this type of loss from others (e.g., historical trauma). Those suffering from AL have difficulty knowing when to begin or end the grieving process, and the effects of this loss can persist indefinitely. Such unresolved grief predicts depression (Boss, 2002a; Boss & Couden, 2002; Boss & Greenberg, 1984; Falicov, 2005a; Huebner, Mancini, Wilcox, Grass, & Grass, 2007; Sobel & Cowan, 2003). In turn, depression is associated with well-documented public health concerns such as reduced functioning across many domains, diabetes, and hypertension (Achat, Kawachi, Spiro, DeMolles, & Sparrow, 2000; Jonas, Franks, & Ingram, 1997; Mezuk, Eaton, Albrecht, & Golden, 2008). A theoretical understanding of ALH would not be complete without exploring the stress suffered by families affected by prolonged separation, familial change, and cumulative losses all which dovetail with the AL theory.
Family Change Following AL
Family change has emerged as a major factor in AL studies and, naturally, this is also important for immigrants who leave loved ones behind, as occurs in most cases. For example, Kean (2010) found that family members of individuals with unrecovered brain injuries experienced AL, and Wahlig (2015) found that parents of transgendered children maintained a psychological connection to the former sex of their children. Dupuis (2002) studied AL among the adult children of parents with dementia, and Robins (2010) researched AL among the families of individuals who disappeared during Nepal’s Maoist insurgency.
More directly related to the current study and resonating with AL theory, Falicov (2005a) posited that the experiences of transnational immigrants—who maintain close emotional ties with relatives back in the homeland—experience emotional and psychological costs. Solheim, Zaid, and Ballard (2016) described transnational Mexican immigrant families in their sample as mourning the loss of separation, struggling with the ambiguity of reunification, and maintaining their psychological familial roles across the distance. AL research suggests that such grief, uncertainty, and distance tends to have a rippling effect on families (Boss, 2002c, 2007).
ALH
These studies show that all types of AL involve lack of closure for lost people, objects, memories, or places (Boss, 2002a, 2006; Boss & Couden, 2002). Yet, existing research supports the exploration of ambiguous losses having to do with the homeland, immigration, and acculturation as a distinct phenomenon. Furthermore, while there are parallels in the way immigrants experience and cope with AL, because of their circumstances of chronic stress and mourning, there are also differences across individuals and groups of immigrants. For example, Cuban Americans from the initial waves of the exodus that followed the 1959 revolution are described as having similar immigration experiences, yet vary in their intensity of loss as well as their coping approaches. Differences were observed in how much they experience nostalgia, how haunted they were with questions that defy closure, whether they yearned to return home again, and their use of a wide number of coping styles ranging from cultural and linguistic maintenance, and a constant holding on to the past, to putting the loss behind and focusing on the benefit of their ordeals for the betterment of future generations (Perez, 2013, 2015, 2016). Also, Van Tilburg, Vingerhoets, and Van Heck (1997) in a study on homesickness found that the amount of time participants focused on homesickness, the meaning they attributed to the loss experience, and the intensity of their feelings surrounding the loss were related to the strategies used to cope. Coping strategies for ALH can include turning to religion, distraction, positive thinking, and social support (Boss, 2006; Perez, 2016).
A framework to conceptualize how individuals experience the stress of ALH will allow for additional research on its relationship to well-being and a better understanding of effective coping strategies. For people experiencing ALH, and for those supporting them (e.g., family, social, peer, or clinical supports), strategies for coping with, or managing the ALH are likely to improve as an understanding of their ALH symptoms and coping resources increases.
Nostalgia and Homesickness
The literature on the related constructs of nostalgia and homesickness appeared throughout the interviews that informed the development of the ALH conceptualization. Nostalgia—a sentimental longing for the past—tends to carry a positive connotation and is associated with people, occasions, places or settings, objects, or pets. On the contrary, homesickness is linked exclusively to a loss of a place (Wildschut, Sedikides, Arndt, & Routledge, 2006) and tends to be associated more with negative emotions such as separation anxiety, rumination, and distress (Sedikides, Wildschut, Routledge, Arndt, & Zhou, 2009). Bad moods have been found to trigger nostalgia; yet, nostalgia is associated with contentment and happiness (Wildschut et al., 2006). Interestingly, neither nostalgia nor homesickness is typically associated with confusion and ambiguity. As such, ALH includes aspects of nostalgia and homesickness. However, because prolonged confusion and loss that defy closure are critical elements of AL, the construct of ALH has other contributors, including contextual differences between the sending and receiving immigrant nations.
RS With the United States
An understanding of immigrants’ attempts to become full members of communities in the United States, coupled with satisfaction with their CO is needed to gauge relative preferences for one homeland over another and may influence the overall experience of ALH. Scholars’ exploration of acculturation indicates that many factors contribute to adaptation and satisfaction with a host country. For immigrants, part of what plays a role in determining their satisfaction in and with the host country are the attachment to the former homeland, the circumstances for leaving, resources upon arrival in the new land, language abilities, and their treatment (Achotegui, 2016; Alegría et al., 2007; Cuéllar & Paniagua, 2000; Fuligni & Pereirra, 2009; Ward & Rana-Deuba, 1999).
Exclusion and Discrimination
How immigrants feel about the host country may be shaped by their experiences of exclusion or discrimination. Berry and Sabatier (2011) outlined the relationships connecting acculturation, discrimination, and adaptation experienced by second-generation immigrant youth in Montreal and Paris, each with remarkably different national contexts. Canada is multicultural and, therefore, “highly culturally diverse,” and Paris adheres to an assimilationist policy and, therefore, is “less diverse.” In both Montreal and Paris, the experience of discrimination had an adverse impact on adaptation; the youth felt like they were neither here in the new land nor there in the homeland. However, the relationship between discrimination, acculturation, and adaptation differed between Montreal and Paris—suggesting the importance of the receiving context.
These researchers found that in both Paris and Montreal, youth who used the acculturation strategy of integration (holding onto one’s heritage while participating in mainstream culture) adapted better than those who adopted a strategy of marginalization (feeling excluded due to discrimination while losing portions of their native culture). In Paris, youth who adopted an integration strategy of acculturation experienced more discrimination; this finding contrasts with the general finding in the literature that integration results in less discrimination.
Youth who used the acculturation strategies of assimilation (primarily orienting toward mainstream culture) and separation (primarily orienting toward their heritage culture) had varied experiences depending on the context they were living in. The authors note that youth in Paris who adopted a strategy of separation experienced even higher levels of discrimination and suggest that the national policies of France that are more oriented toward assimilation may be contributing to these relationships. When there is an inclination by immigrants toward “cultural maintenance,” and this contrasts with larger cultural norms, they may unwittingly attract negative attention and discrimination.
The discrimination experience can be associated with dissatisfaction with the host country, and this, therefore, increases the desire to turn away from it and toward the homeland. Research indicates a connection between the dissatisfaction with the host country and a desire to return to the homeland (Massey & Akresh, 2006). Alternatively, employment and residential satisfaction with the host country, more than person-level attributes, has been associated with lowered return migration (Waldorf, 1995). These findings suggest that a host society experienced as unwelcoming, hostile, or discriminatory can negatively affect immigrants’ post-migration psychological experiences.
The (Un)Welcoming Context
Barriers to adequate adaptation, which can lower immigrant’s satisfaction levels with the host society, have played a powerful role in shaping immigrants’ experiences. Herbert J. Gans (1997) has discussed how changing levels of acceptance by mainstream society have affected the immigrant experience. Xenophobia has waxed and waned over the course of U.S. history. At times, the United States has taken steps to keep certain immigrant groups out of the country. On other occasions, the United States has adopted liberal immigration policies that have led to higher immigrant flows. For instance, most Latino immigrants arrived in the United States during the more liberal policies of the mid-1960s that were shaped by the 1965 Hart-Celler Act. Also, the rhetoric surrounding, which immigrant groups are welcomed in the United States and which are not affect individuals’ desire to keep their homeland at the forefront of their awareness.
Contentious topics in the United States that are related to Latinos include the question of whether to build a wall along the southern border to restrict migration and the debate around making English the official language of the country; these topics may contribute to feelings of exclusion, and challenge assimilation strategies. Addressing the issue of language and the strong connections to Latino homelands, Massey et al. (1993) and others put forth sociological explanations about circular migration patterns between Latin America and the United States and discussed Latinos’ acquisition of the English language and subsequent erosion of the Spanish language across immigrant generations. Massey & Denton (1993) identified reduced travel costs and other push and pull migration factors that are known to affect immigrants’ abilities to travel back and forth between the homeland and the host country (i.e., circular migration). Network theories of international migration, in which immigrants leave behind family members in their homeland and are later reunited with them in the host country are facilitated by United States immigration law provisions for family reunification (Massey & Denton, 1993).
Because of the growing awareness of the ill effects of discrimination and the problems with adaptation, more and more research espouses the benefits of bicultural orientations. Berry (2005) and Berry et al (1997), described those who pursue an “integration” strategy for acculturation as having superior health overall as well as a sense of being more culturally integrated. Cross-cultural advantages include biculturalism and code switching, all deemed essential skills in the increasingly globalized world (Nguyen & Benet-Martínez, 2007). Moreover, a study of immigrant youth (Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006) revealed that young people who use the integration strategy have higher levels of psychological adaptation (i.e., less depression or anxiety and higher self-esteem) and sociocultural adaptation (i.e., better adjustment at school) than those who experience marginalization. Given the benefits of the integration strategy to the well-being of individuals and society as a whole, it is not surprising that Berry (2005) recommended that countries adopt policies that are supportive of an integration approach to acculturation. Specifically, he recommends a multicultural approach that celebrates and promotes both diversity and participation in the society as a whole.
The Push and Pull of Migration
Immigrants have varied reasons for leaving their homeland and migrating to the United States. Those who feel pushed out of their CO as the result of a political crisis may experience greater levels of AL compared with those who migrated out of economic necessity. Those not feeling pushed out of their CO may feel pulled into the United States by the perceived attractiveness of resources such as a robust economy, political stability, or familial connections. The lure of these factors, when there is little that is appealing about the CO and when the acculturation experiences are fruitful, can lead individuals to feel more satisfied with the United States relative to their CO. Accordingly, migration circumstances affect the experience of the loss of homeland differently based on whether emigration occurred because of push or pull factors.
Pull factors lean toward an association with voluntary emigration, and push factors favor a relationship with involuntary emigration. Examples of involuntary migration include the experiences of individuals who have migrated because of political strife, such as those who left Cuba following the revolution or left El Salvador after the civil war. Also, individuals motivated to migrate as a result of push factors (e.g., displaced by natural disasters) are considered involuntary migrants. Migration, whether motivated by push or a pull factor, is suspected to have differential effects on health (Kirmayer et al., 2011; Pumariega, Rothe, & Pumariega, 2005). An involuntary, forced, and prolonged separation from one’s homeland may result in increased risk of mental and physical health consequences (Grove & Zwi, 2006). Given the traumatic circumstances surrounding involuntary migration and the confusion and ambiguity that follow such a move, it is likely that, among other symptoms of traumatic stress, involuntary immigrants may experience ALH acutely.
Cubans leaving their homeland under the traumatic and confusing circumstances of the 1959 revolution have been described as living in the United States with chronic uncertainty about whether they would ever return (Perez, 2013, 2015). Many kept their homeland psychologically close throughout their lives alongside concurrent feelings of helplessness, sorrow, and heartache that required lifelong coping (Perez, 2016). Their pain appeared to be rooted in the sense of loss and related struggles to adapt to the new homeland. Expressions of ALH included devoting time and effort to recreating aspects of Cuba in the United States and taking pride in their Cuban heritage; at the same time, they continued to mourn the loss of the homeland from which many were cut off due to ideological differences.
Many Cubans who migrated to the United States in the initial waves following the 1959 revolution maintained a desire to keep the past alive despite knowing that their memories of the Cuban pre-Revolutionary era did not match current circumstances in their homeland (Perez, 2016). Study participants discussed wanting to return to pre-Revolutionary Cuba as they remembered it while struggling with the reality that returning was unlikely, or that the CO would not be as they recollected. In addition to keeping the CO psychologically present, families experiencing ALH often experience a blurring of familial boundaries. ALH appeared most acute for families who were geographically separated for long stretches of time or even permanently. For this group, compounding the trauma of leaving Cuba due to the political climate was the ambiguity surrounding when, if ever, they could return to their homeland or reunite with their families. This long-term ambiguity created psychological stress as Cuban Americans grappled with their identities in addition to the separation from friends and family. Long-term ambiguity about their relationship with their homeland also created practical difficulties involving when and how to establish new roots, occupations, and relationships in the United States.
We conceptualize individuals who are “pulled there” as those who have a strong attachment to their culture and heritage. They are expected to have a closer connection to their CO and may be more likely to separate. However, Perez (2013, 2015) noted that Cuban Americans showed evidence of living with both the experience of loss and a concurrent connection to the homeland all the while adapting successfully to life in the United States. Cubans might claim they long for the beautiful beaches of Cuba while being grateful for the opportunities in the United States. Many had successfully mourned their beloved homeland and also adapted to life in the United States; this illustrates flexible, “both”/“and” coping style of thinking as recommended by Boss (2006). Rather than attempting to erase their homeland from memory, Boss encourages those affected to both stay in touch with their heritage and adopt positive aspects of the new culture.
This literature suggests that immigrants who felt pushed out involuntarily from their CO are likely to maintain higher levels of confused psychological attachment (i.e., AL) to their homeland. The impact of other factors (e.g., age at migration, education) needs to be explored for their relationship to the experience of AL.
Dual Frame of Reference
An individual’s outlook on their circumstances could well shape their sense of AL. Consider that immigrants are described as holding a dual frame of reference (Reese, 2001). On one hand, they hold on to the culture and traditions of their homeland and on the other, they become oriented to the host country. The more immigrants feel unwelcomed in the host country, the more they might idealize the life they once lived or could have lived in the homeland. Having the option to draw on prior experiences, even if romanticized can be a protective factor. In the face of discrimination, immigrants may normalize their situation by recalling a worse situation back in the CO or by justifying their decision to leave in a way that is superior in its totality than the one drawback of discrimination.
It should be noted, however, that the frame of reference hypothesis is considered a protective factor for immigrants but possibly not for later generations of immigrants. Second and later generation immigrants because they were born in the United States and were not raised elsewhere generally lack a point of comparison. If they are, for example, discriminated against in the United States, they cannot draw on their experiences in their homeland where they were in the majority group. As such, they do not have this protective immigrant frame of reference available to them.
Having a dual frame of reference between the CO and the host country can, therefore, be a useful resource for immigrants. For immigrants with a favorable level of satisfaction to the CO, high levels of ALH do not necessarily become problematic. For these reasons, individual’s reasons for leaving the homeland and the circumstances of emigration could affect the severity of ALH. In essence, the consideration for RS with the homeland, especially the dual frame of reference, could conceivably intersect with ALH. Both are important.
Attachments to Home
The political or economic climate of the sending countries could complicate immigrants’ decisions to return to the CO and could influence their perspectives about both countries. When a return is logistically feasible, immigrants may base the decision on their relative level of satisfaction with both countries. This decision is rarely simple. Attachment theory highlights the importance of the individual’s need to belong as a large motivating factor (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991). Baumeister and Leary (1995) reported that individuals are reluctant to sever bonds of attachment and when forced to do so, experience profound stress and a strong motivation to form new bonds. Regular social contact, reciprocal in nature, is optimal for meeting the basic need to belong. Once immigrants have formed new relationships in the host country, those relationships—and the vital sense of belonging that flows from them—become a powerful incentive to stay in the host country rather than risk disruption again. Furthermore, research suggests that a shared negative experience may strengthen interpersonal attraction (Elder, Caspi, & Burton, 1988; Kenrick & Johnson, 1979). Thus, when immigrants successfully form new social support networks in the host country with others who have experienced similar challenges, they may experience additional motivation to maintain those relationships and stay in the host country.
Attachments and responsibilities in the United States can compete with a desire to return to one’s homeland. Often, immigrants do not want to separate from families they have created in the United States. To avoid such a separation, they do not return, although they may retain a longing for their homeland; this renders the return as a wish rather than a viable reality. In our interviews, wonderment about whether such wishes to return will be satisfied is associated with an incurable mourning and longing for what was lost. In this way, questions about satisfaction with the homeland (i.e., attachments to family left behind and contentment with current opportunities in the homeland) as well as satisfaction with the United States (i.e., attachments to new relationships and satisfaction with current opportunities in the new country) may be affected by ambivalence or feelings of being torn between a desire to return to the homeland and a desire to remain in the host country.
With the above information in mind, we set out to explore the dimensions of AL by interviewing target participants with the intention of later developing and validating a measure for ALH.
Method
The proposed conceptual framework arose out of the literature reviewed and 30-minute cognitive interviews with 55 Spanish-speaking immigrant participants, 18 years or older, from Spanish-speaking nations. These cognitive interviews helped to refine the conceptual framework.
Procedures were informed by Cavazos-Rehg, Zayas, Walker, and Fisher (2006) in their work with a similar population. As pre-arranged with an ethnic grocery store, a table was set up for the principal investigator and research assistants to conduct one-on-one Spanish-language cognitive interviews using a list of questions initially conceived from the researchers’ review of the literature and prior related work. A recruitment flyer was posted on the table to help recruit participants. In addition to participants approaching our table, we approached some passersby in an effort to encourage participation in the study. The protocol included the interviewer introducing our institutional affiliation and ourselves, informing prospective participants we were conducting a confidential and anonymous survey and interviews, and that this meant we would not collect personal data such as their names. The recruiting criteria included being over 18 years old, having migrated from a Spanish-speaking country, and being able to understand and agree to the terms of the “informed consent” form, which was provided in Spanish.
Participants’ were informed of their right to refuse to answer any questions and to stop the interview at anytime. We explained that we were seeking assistance in understanding the best questions to ask immigrants about leaving the homeland. We also explained the think aloud format where they would look at our questions and then help us correct them or think of new ones. In exchange for 30 minutes of their time, we gave participants a United States$10 certificate toward in-store purchases (usable that day, or anytime within the next year). Descriptive statistics of the 55 participants are provided in Table 1.
Descriptive Statistics (N = 55).
Two participants did not respond; all others migrated to the United States between the years 1962 and 2014.
Three interviewers performed these surveys and cognitive interviews across the span of 3 months. During this process, it became apparent that AL and reported levels of satisfaction were not always related. While many participants described keeping their CO psychologically present (thus, experiencing AL), their feelings related to their satisfaction with the CO and the United States were less consistent. Thus began the conceptualization of ALH as a separate dimension from RS—where RS is used to assess the difference between an immigrant’s satisfaction with the United States as compared with his or her recalled satisfaction with their CO. Participants’ satisfaction with both the United States and their CO was examined on topics such as climate, culture, politics, and personal opportunities and experiences. The RS dimension reflects the difference in an immigrant’s overall satisfaction ratings across the two lands.
While the level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction one has with the homeland and the new host country was initially expected to contribute to feelings of AL, interviews indicated that ALH could exist independently of conscious preferences for the United States or the CO.
Development of the Proposed Conceptual Framework
The proposed conceptual framework is based on two dimensions that emerged during the cognitive interviews: ALH and RS between the CO and the host country, the United States, as described above. The two dimensions of the conceptual framework are presented graphically in Figure 1. The first dimension is the level of ALH, which ranges from low to high along the horizontal axis, with lower levels of ALH represented at the far left of the graph, and the degree of ALH increasing as it moves to the right. The second dimension is the participants’ RS between the CO and the United States along the vertical axis. “Relative satisfaction” indicates whether there is a greater satisfaction expressed for their CO (the top of the graph), or for the United States (the bottom of the graph). Those who are similarly satisfied with both countries are located in the middle.
Conceptual framework: ALH by RS.
Descriptions of each quadrant, along with examples and implications of immigrants whose experiences fall into each of the four quadrants of the conceptual framework, are included below and shown in Figure 1. The terms here and there are used to indicate pulls toward the United States or the CO, respectively. This can assist practitioners and their immigrant clients to differentiate between issues related to RS between the CO and the United States, and the extent to which AL is problematic for this population.
Quadrant I: Pulled There
The immigrants located in Quadrant 1, “pulled there,” express a higher RS with their CO than the United States, and higher levels of ALH. The term pulled there indicates that individuals in this quadrant are drawn toward their homeland on both of these dimensions. That is, they were relatively more satisfied with their homeland than the United States and also feel the loss of their homeland strongly. Immigrants in this quadrant may express a preference to live in their homeland if there were more favorable political, economic, or personal circumstances. However, perceptions of the homeland may be idealized or frozen in time. For example, Cubans who migrated to the United States in the early waves for political reasons are described as yearning to return to the Cuba of pre-1959. Cubans who migrated more recently are described as longing for the Cuba of today (Pedraza, 2007; Pedraza-Bailey, 1980).
Those who came to the United States for economic reasons may also feel “pulled there.” One participant from Ecuador began to sob before taking the survey. This participant indicated that she had many feelings toward her country. She said that the United States has provided her with a lot, and she is grateful, but she misses her homeland. This participant revealed that when she came alone, and her family was still in Ecuador she was a wreck. However, even though she has now been reunited with her family in the United States, she still mourns the homeland.
Quadrant II: Neither Here nor There
Located in Quadrant II, “neither here nor there,” are immigrants with lower levels of ALH; however, they prefer their CO to the United States. The term neither here nor there indicates that individuals in this quadrant experience only minimal feelings of loss of their homeland, but are not any more satisfied with the United States. Immigrants in this quadrant may not feel a strong attachment to their homeland nor to the United States. Some may have coped with ALH feelings while others may not feel connected to the sending country due to circumstances in the CO. However, their relative preference of their homeland to the United States could be indicative of what Park (1928) and Stonequist (1935) have labeled “alienation” from the host country culture. Immigrants in this quadrant may feel that they do not have a country to call home.
Quadrant III: Mostly Here
In Quadrant III, “mostly here” refers to immigrants experiencing lower levels of ALH and higher RS with the United States. The term mostly here indicates that individuals in this quadrant are likely to consider the United States as their home. Immigrants in this quadrant may be more focused on acculturating to the host country and may not seek to retain the culture and identity associated with their CO. They might also be coping well with ALH. A 50-year-old participant from the Dominican Republic (DR) indicated that she does not experience loss because she has found ways to cope. Her words were, “la patria no se pierde, se supera el sentimiento [you don’t lose the homeland, you cope with the feelings].”
Perez (2016) found that some Cuban Americans tended to prefer the United States to the Cuba of today, and have learned to cope successfully with ALH over time. Many experienced high levels of ALH when they first arrived, but their ALH is now lower as their attachment to their homeland has waned over time. Other Cubans who migrated more recently prefer the United States but can and do return home often—leading them to experience the loss somewhat less profoundly. When the connection to the homeland has fewer barriers, we suspect the loss is less ambiguous and potentially less problematic.
Quadrant IV: Here but Pulled There
We refer to individuals in Quadrant IV as those who are “here but pulled there.” These immigrants experience greater ALH, but have a higher RS with the United States than with the CO. In the latter sense, a transnational is the term for these individuals. Transnational’s—defined and studied by Peggy Levitt (2003) and colleagues—are people who maintain a strategy of living and adapting to life in the host country “here” while also maintaining close connections with their CO. If these connections are associated with stronger feelings of AL, it can continue to make immigrants feel “pulled there.”
In our study, a woman from the DR preferred the United States but maintained a close connection with her homeland and her relatives who remain there. She shared that when she gets “el sentimiento” or the sentimental “feeling” associated with high ALH, she jumps on a plane and goes back to the DR. This interviewee described that upon landing, she gets a bit of rum and whiskey and feels elated at the sounds of Latin music playing. She especially enjoys the festive holiday traditions in her homeland. Even though she has high ALH and loves her homeland, she added, “the reality is that there are too many reasons to stay in the United States”—hence her RS is higher for the host country.
Discussion
Both ALH and RS between the homeland and the host country influence immigrants’ experiences and may affect their acculturation and well-being. This preliminary work identifies different ways in which individuals mourn their homeland, and vary in their RS of their CO or the United States. The proposed conceptual framework is in line with the literature that perceives all immigrants to be mourners, as well as the acculturation literature, especially on issues such as cultural retention. We argue that individuals, to different degrees, maintain their heritage culture while seeking interaction with the cultures of their host country. The proposed conceptual framework was supported by the experiences expressed by immigrants from different Spanish-dominant Latino countries during our cognitive interviews and supports the connection of disparate literature on AL, and RS with the homeland, and aspects of adaptation into a host society.
The challenge of understanding and assisting groups and individuals who live with ALH warrants further exploration. ALH may be associated with post-immigration stress, which is likely to be more severe for displaced populations and groups cut off from their homelands for a variety of reasons (e.g., refugees, undocumented migrants, and sick, aging, or poor populations) than for immigrants who could more easily return home. The lifelong nature of ALH (Perez, 2016) is worthy of additional exploration and confirmation. Intergenerational effects within families such as those found in descendants of Holocaust survivors (Gangi, Talamo, & Ferracuti, 2009; Iliceto et al., 2011; Solomon, Kotler, & Mikulincer, 1988), Japanese internment camps (Nagata, Trierweiler, & Talbot, 1999), and other groups attest to the longevity of such similar traumas.
Considering the lifelong nature of ALH, it tends to defy closure. As such, higher levels of ALH may counteract the forces of acculturation, and dissatisfaction with the host country may also negatively affect acculturation across the life span. As exclusionary policies or outright discrimination experienced in the United States may encourage immigrants to maintain a closer connection to their homeland, a receiving country’s goals for acculturation should inform its society’s policies to welcome and incorporate newcomers. Regional demographics may also affect post-immigration stress and acculturation. Large, visible groups of immigrants within a given region attract attention in positive or negative ways (Yinger, 1986); at the same time, a large co-ethnic peer group and other environmental factors such as a favorable social climate may positively moderate feelings of marginalization (Brown et al., 2009).
The importance of the proposed conceptual framework is multifold. First, AL may induce chronic symptoms of anxiety and depression similar to or worse than those rooted in the original trauma (Boss, 2006). With ALH, that trauma is likely related to the departure from the homeland. Once ALH is adequately understood and measured, new hope exists for supportive interventions for vulnerable individuals. Second, the conceptual framework incorporates a dimension representing the degree to which individuals are satisfied with the new host country relative to how satisfied they were with their CO. Thus, it is possible to study how RS with both countries, along with the experience of ALH, affects mental health issues, such as post-migration stress. Finally, the proposed framework can be used to relate existing theoretical and qualitative exploration of ALH with the literature on acculturation, and examine the implications across immigrant groups.
This proposed conceptual framework provides a basis from which scales and other assessment tools can be developed to quantify the experience of AL and RS of the homeland. Further research is needed to understand the relationship of each quadrant to coping, acculturation, and mental health correlates such as post-immigration stress.
Individuals with both low ALH and lower RS with the host country may benefit from counseling that focuses on helping them to overcome isolation and build meaningful connections with others. However, individuals who are marginalized are less likely to seek counseling in the first place. For this reason, creative and wide-reaching community interventions such as those intended to help children at school are more apt to have an impact. Culturally sensitive, accessible health care may also provide an opportunity to reach individuals who are “neither here nor there.” Insights gained from the proposed conceptual framework could inform questions such as how and why natural strategies employed by individuals coping with AL work over time. This framework, by joining AL with RS, complements Boss’s (2006) AL theory and Perez’s (2016) extension of AL to issues of loss of homeland. Drawing on these theories and using this framework, it will be possible to study immigrants’ coping as they attempt to revise attachment, temper mastery, renegotiate identity, normalize ambivalence, find meaning, and discover new hope.
Our upcoming work includes the development of assessments to understand better and measure the experience of ALH as well as RS. A reliable measure of ALH experience will make it possible to test the effectiveness of therapeutic and public health interventions designed to help individuals cope with an AL that defies closure. The current conceptual framework is a significant contribution to the immigration literature, and measures of ALH and RS concepts are expected to be applicable not just to Latinos, but to the growing immigrant and refugee population worldwide.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to several grocery store partners and Fordham University doctoral students Amanda DeJesus, Denise Gosselin, and Andrew Palomo for assistance with data collection and entry. We are also grateful to Tracy Steen, Zulema E. Suarez, and David Estrin for their editorial support.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a grant from the Faculty Research and Development Fund, Fordham University, Graduate School of Social Service.