Content uploaded by Sibylle Heilbrunn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sibylle Heilbrunn on Nov 11, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=fisa20
Download by: [Emek Hayarden College] Date: 01 February 2016, At: 22:30
Israel Affairs
ISSN: 1353-7121 (Print) 1743-9086 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fisa20
Identity of immigrants – between majority
perceptions and self-definition
Sibylle Heilbrunn, Anastasia Gorodzeisky & Anya Glikman
To cite this article: Sibylle Heilbrunn, Anastasia Gorodzeisky & Anya Glikman (2016) Identity
of immigrants – between majority perceptions and self-definition, Israel Affairs, 22:1, 236-247,
DOI: 10.1080/13537121.2015.1111635
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13537121.2015.1111635
Published online: 01 Feb 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
ISRAEL AFFAIRS, 2016
VOL. 22, NO. 1, 236247
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13537121.2015.1111635
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
Identity of immigrants – between majority
perceptions and self-denition
Sibylle Heilbrunn, Anastasia Gorodzeisky and Anya Glikman
Kinneret Academic College, Tel Aviv University, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel
KEYWORDS Identity; immigrants; looking-glass theory; Israel
Theoretical framework and social setting
e immigration of Jews to Israel is one of the formative events in the country’s
society. e Jewish people consider Israel their homeland, and under Israeli
law every Jew has the right to immigrate to Israel. Hence, Israeli society views
Jewish immigration as a ‘returning Diaspora’ and not as an economic migra-
tion.1 However, as with any other migration, Jewish immigration to Israel is
accompanied by a transformation of the immigrants’ identity.
ABSTRACT
Immigration is often accompanied by identity transformation. This article studies
the identity of immigrants in the framework of Cooley’s ‘looking-glass’ theory by
examining the conceptions of various immigrant groups in Israel of how the veteran
majority population perceives them. In addition, it examines the interrelation
between immigrant identity as reected in their self-denition and immigrant
beliefs about how the Israeli veteran majority population denes their identity.
An empirical analysis was conducted on a representative sample of 437 former
Soviet Union (FSU) immigrants and 338 Ethiopian immigrants aged 18‒60 who
arrived in Israel under the Law of Return. The ndings revealed little congruence
among Ethiopian immigrants between their self-denition (mainly Jewish) and
their perception of how the majority group denes them (mainly Ethiopian). This
lack of congruence implies that in the opinion of a substantive share of Ethiopian
immigrants, the majority population in Israel is still not ready to include them
within the boundaries of the Israeli-Jewish collective. The ndings regarding FSU
immigrants show considerable congruence between their self-denition and their
belief as to how the veterans dene them. Most FSU immigrants, who dene
themselves as Israelis, think that the majority group sees them as such. The eect of
socio-demographic characteristics on immigrants’ identities was also investigated
in the study.
CONTACT Sibylle Heilbrunn sibylleh@kinneret.ac.il
Downloaded by [Emek Hayarden College] at 22:30 01 February 2016
ISRAEL AFFAIRS 237
eoretical literature on the topic suggests that immigrants’ acculturation in
the destination countries is associated with deep changes in identity.2 Previous
research in various destination countries in general and in Israel in particu-
lar reveals that these changes do not necessarily ‘erase’ the old identity of the
immigrant in favour of the ‘mainstream’ identity of the host society. Rather,
as a result of immigrants’ identity changes, a complex new identity, which
includes both the old and the new, is created.3 Most studies have examined the
issue of immigrant identity from the perspective of their own self-definition.4
By contrast, this article examines the identity of immigrants from a different
perspective ‒ namely, immigrants’ perception of how the majority group (the
veteran population) members define them in terms of national identity. is
perspective, to the best of our knowledge, has not previously been investigated.
Our research initiates from Cooley’s ‘looking-glass’ theory.5 According to
this theory, in social life other people serve as mirrors through which we see
ourselves. e term ‘I am in the looking-glass’ describes an individual’s self-
image based on their conception of how they are perceived by others.
As we see our face, figure, and dress in the glass, and are interested in them
because they are ours, and pleased or otherwise with them according to whether
they do or do not answer to what we should like them to be; so in imagination
we perceive in another’s mind some thought of our appearance, manners, aims,
deeds, character, friends, and so on, and are variously affected by it.6
In a classic review of studies on the looking-glass self, Shraugher and
Schoeneman concluded that rather than our self-concept resembling the way
others actually see us, it is filtered through our perceptions and resembles how
we think others see us.7 Cooley’s looking-glass theory also emphasizes the extent
of the importance of the others who serve as mirror: ‘the character and weight
of that other, in whose mind we see ourselves, makes all the difference with our
feeling’.8 In the framework of our study – following Cooley’s theory – we argue
that a vital component of immigrant identity is their perception of how the
majority group (veteran population) defines them. us, we aim to examine
the conceptions of various immigrant groups in Israel of how the veteran
population perceives them as a group. In addition, we examine the interrelation
between immigrant identity as reflected in their self-definition and their beliefs
about how the Israeli veteran majority population (important reference group)
defines their identity.
Since the mid-1980s, Israel has received immigrants from two major
diasporas – the former Soviet Union (FSU) and Ethiopia. e massive wave of
former Soviet Union immigrants that arrived in Israel between 1989 and 2000
helped to mould a new social dynamic and pluralistic reality. e main features
of this group include a greater motivation to leave the Soviet Union than to
settle in Israel9 and a desire to preserve their Russian cultural uniqueness while
integrating into Israeli society.10 e Ethiopian immigrants arrived in three
waves: the first wave in the mid-1980s, the second wave at the beginning of
Downloaded by [Emek Hayarden College] at 22:30 01 February 2016
238 S. HEILBRUNN ET AL.
the 1990s, and the third wave is still ongoing. is group of immigrants has a
strong desire to integrate into Israeli society.11
Both the former Soviet Union immigrant group and the Ethiopian immigrant
group are characterized by unique ideological, cultural, social, and economic
attributes and, in several parameters, the Ethiopian immigration and the FSU
immigration are very different.
12
First, nowadays the FSU immigrants represent
in Israel a large population of over 1 million individuals, while the Ethiopian
immigrants are a relatively small group of 119,300.13 Second, the Ethiopian
Jews are mostly religious, while the overwhelming majority of FSU immigrants
are secular.14 ird, the FSU immigrant population contains a large number of
educated and professional individuals (a higher percentage than in the general
population of Israel);15 by contrast, the Ethiopian immigrants have a very low
average level of education, as in their origin country, characterized by a rural
traditional culture, 90% of the adult population is illiterate.16 Finally, but not
less important, while FSU immigrants can be considered an invisible minority
in terms of skin colour, the blackness of Ethiopian immigrants positions them
as the most visible minority among the Jewish-Israeli population. Moreover,
the black Ethiopian community provoked for the first time a debate regarding
race and Jewishness in Israel.17
Nevertheless, disregarding their socio-economic disparities, in Israel both
immigrant groups are minority, subordinate ‘out-groups’ in relation to the
veteran Jewish majority population (the dominant ‘in-group’). e veteran
majority population serves as a reference group for the out-groups, and thus the
majority attitude affects the moulding of the immigrants’ identity. Since these
two immigrant groups are out-groups, which in addition arrived in Israel at
more or less at the same time, comparing their complex identities is especially
meaningful. e differences between the groups ‒ namely their size, socio-eco-
nomic status, degree of religiosity, level of education, and colour of skin ‒ lead
us to expect substantial variance in their identity, as reflected in their belief of
how the majority population defines them as a group.
On top of the ‘between groups’ differences, there are also ‘within group’
differences in demographic and socio-economic characteristics that may affect
identity perceptions within each of the two immigrant groups. Previous theory
and research emphasized several important determinants of immigrant identity
worldwide and in Israel specifically: years since integration, level of education,
proficiency in the language of the new country, degree of religiosity, and labour
market participation.18
Following the described theoretical framework and social setting, our empir-
ical analysis attempts to answer three research questions:
• How do the two immigrant groups (Ethiopian and FSU immigrants)
perceive that the veteran majority population defines their identity?
Downloaded by [Emek Hayarden College] at 22:30 01 February 2016
ISRAEL AFFAIRS 239
• Can we detect a pattern of relationship between the immigrants’ self-defi-
nition and their perception of the way veterans define their identity?
• To what extent do demographic and socio-economic characteristics
affect the immigrants’ identity among Ethiopian and FSU immigrants, as
reflected in their perception of the veterans’ definition of their identity?
Methods
Sample and procedure
The data for this study were taken from a telephone survey commis-
sioned by the Centre for Immigration and Social Integration at the Ruppin
Academic Centre, performed in 2007 by the Dahaf Institute using the strat-
ified sampling method. The present analysis was limited to the samples of
FSU and Ethiopian immigrants aged 18‒60. FSU immigrants were defined
by country of origin (FSU republics) and year of immigration (since
1989); Ethiopian immigrants were defined by Ethiopia as their country
of origin.19 The final research sample consists of 437 FSU immigrants and
338 Ethiopian immigrants. The interviews were conducted in Russian and
Amharic languages.
Measures
e key variable of this study is immigrant perception of the majority popula-
tion’s definition of their identity (in other words, immigrant identity according
to the ‘looking-glass’ theory’s definition of identity). We measured this variable
through the question, ‘How do veteran Israelis mainly perceive you – as an
Israeli, as a Jew, or by your country of origin?’
We also examined the immigrants’ identity according to their self-definition.
We measured this variable using the question, ‘Which of the following terms
best defines your identity – Israeli, Jewish or your country of origin group?’
We examined this variable not as a separate research topic, but in the context
of the immigrants’ identity as they believe the veterans perceive it.20
The analysis also included the following individual demographic and
socio-economic attributes which may explain immigrant perception of
the majority population’s definition of their identity: degree of religiosity
(measured on a four-point scale), number of years since migration to Israel,
number of years of formal schooling, labour market position as a series
of dummy variables (employed, unemployed, and not in the active labour
force), and self-reported assessment of Hebrew fluency (measured on a five-
point scale). Individual characteristics for control purposes were gender,
age, and marital status.
Downloaded by [Emek Hayarden College] at 22:30 01 February 2016
240 S. HEILBRUNN ET AL.
Method of analysis
To examine patterns of relationship between immigrant self-definition and
their perception of the majority population’s definition of their identity, we used
crosstabs and Cramer’s V correlation test. In order to examine the impact of
demographic and socio-economic factors on immigrant identity (as they believe
the majority population perceives it) we estimated a series of multi-nominal
logistic regressions, which are the most appropriate for a nominal dependent
variable with more than two categories.
Findings
Immigrants’ perception of their identity as dened by the majority
group
Table 1 displays the distribution of the responses to the question regarding
immigrant perception of the Israeli majority population’s definition of their
identity.
e data reveal that about 42% of FSU immigrants assume that the
veteran population in Israel perceives them as ‘Israelis’. A similar proportion
of respondents consider that they are perceived by the majority population as
‘Russians’, and only 16% believe that they are mainly defined by the majority
population as ‘Jews’.
A different picture emerges for the perceptions of Ethiopian immigrants.
Two-thirds of this group claims that the veterans define them by their country of
origin, i.e. as ‘Ethiopians’. By comparison, 21% assume that they are perceived as
‘Israelis’ and 13% claim that they are defined by the veteran population as ‘Jews’.
us, whereas most immigrants from Ethiopia believe that veteran Israelis
view them as Ethiopians and only one-fih believe that they are viewed as
Israelis, the share of FSU immigrants who believe that they are viewed as
Russians is similar to the share that believe they are viewed as Israelis. A
relatively low percentage of both FSU and Ethiopian immigrants think that
the majority population sees them as ‘Jews’.
Relationship between immigrant self-denition and immigrant
perception of the majority group’s denition of their identity
Before discussing the relationship between these two types of identity definitions,
we present the distribution of responses related to immigrant self-definition
Table 1.Immigrant perception of the majority group’s definition of their identity.
Israeli Jew Country of Origin
FSU Immigrants 41.6% 16% 42.4%
Ethiopian Immigrants 21.1% 12.8% 66.1%
Downloaded by [Emek Hayarden College] at 22:30 01 February 2016
ISRAEL AFFAIRS 241
(Table 2). Evidently, whereas most immigrants from Ethiopia define themselves
as Jews and relatively few of them (18.3%) define themselves as Israelis, quite
similar proportions of FSU immigrants define themselves as Israelis, Jews, and
Russians, respectively.
e data presented in Table 3 demonstrate that approximately two-thirds of the
FSU immigrants (69%) who define themselves as Israelis believe that the majority
population also views them as Israelis. A similar picture (and with a slightly higher
rate of overlap) is revealed regarding their Russian identity. On the other hand, only
one-third of the immigrants from the former Soviet Union who define themselves
as Jews assume that the majority members also view them as such.
Cramer’s V test result (V = 0.403; p < 0.01) indicates a statistically significant
and relatively strong correlation between immigrants’ self-definition and their
perception of the way the veteran population defines them among immigrants
from the former Soviet Union.
e picture for Ethiopian immigrants differs considerably. e only mean-
ingful rate of overlap between self-definition and immigrant perception of their
identity as defined by the majority group was found for Ethiopian identity: 70%
of respondents who define themselves as Ethiopians also assume that the major-
ity population defines them as Ethiopians. However, only a quarter of those
who identify themselves as Israelis think that the majority also perceives them
as Israelis. Moreover, only 15% of Ethiopian immigrants who define themselves
as Jews believe that the majority population does the same.
e statistical test (Cramer’s V) indicates that the correlation between
self-identity definition and perceived identity definition among Ethiopian
immigrants is not statistically significant.
The inuence of socio-demographic characteristics on immigrants’
identity (as reected in their perception of the veteran’s denition of
their identity)
e final question of this article refers to the effect of socio-demographic char-
acteristics of immigrants on immigrant perceptions of the majority population’s
Table 3.Rate of overlap between two identity definitions: immigrant self-definition and
immigrant perception of the majority group’s definition of their identity.
FSU immigrants Ethiopian immigrants
Israeli 69% 24%
Jewish 33% 15%
Country of origin 78% 70%
Table 2.Immigrant self-definition.
Israeli Jew Country of Origin
FSU Immigrants 33.7% 39.7% 26.6%
Ethiopian Immigrants 18.3% 59.3% 22.4%
Downloaded by [Emek Hayarden College] at 22:30 01 February 2016
242 S. HEILBRUNN ET AL.
definition of their identity. Table 4 displays non-standardized coefficients of
multi-nominal regression equations predicting the odds to believe that the
majority population defines them as Israelis or Jews (as compared to Russian/
Ethiopian) among FSU/Ethiopian immigrants. Models 1A and 1B predict the
odds among immigrants from the former Soviet Union, while models 2A and
2B predict the odds among immigrants from Ethiopia.
Model 1A shows that among FSU immigrants, the odds of believing that the
majority population defines them as Israeli (versus Russian) tend to increase
with the degree of religiosity, the time spent in Israel, and the degree of fluency
in Hebrew. is belief is weaker among FSU immigrants who are not in the
active labour force and among older immigrants. For instance, the odds of
believing that the majority population perceives you as Israeli (versus Russian)
for individuals not in the active labour force are 0.3 times the same odds among
the employed (as implied by statistically significant and negative coefficient:
b = ‒1.12). e findings presented in model 1B reveal that among FSU immi-
grants, the odds of assuming that the majority group defines them as a Jew
(versus Russian) increase with the degree of religiosity and fluency in Hebrew,
and decreases with years of education.
Model 2A reveals that for Ethiopian immigrants, employment status is the
only socio-demographic characteristic that affects their belief that the majority
population defines them as Israelis (versus Ethiopian). For Ethiopian immi-
grants who are not in the active labour force, the odds of believing that the
majority population views them as Israeli (versus Ethiopian) are twice the odds
of employed immigrants (as implied by the statistically significant and positive
coefficient: b = 0.73). It seems that interaction with the majority population
in the labour market reduces the odds of Ethiopian immigrants believing that
Table 4. Non-standardized Multi-Nominal Regression Coefficients (STD) Predicting
Immigrant Perception of their Identity as Defined by the Majority Group.
1Comparison category – employed.
*p < 0.05.
Immigrants from the former
Soviet Union Immigrants from Ethiopia
Israelis 1A Jews 1B Israelis 2A Jews 2B
Constant -4.12 -4.22 -4.02 -2.02
Degree of religiosity 0.49*(0.15) 1.21*(0.18) 0.01(0.20) 0.37(0.31)
Number of years in Israel 0.22*(0.04) 0.02(0.05) 0.05(0.04) -0.08*(0.04)
Years of education -0.03(0.04) -0.12*(0.05) 0.08(0.05) -0.03(0.06)
Age -0.03*(0.01) 0.01(0.02) 0.01(0.03) 0.01(0.02)
Degree of fluency in Hebrew 0.60*(0.15) 0.39*(0.19) 0.29(0.23) -0.05(0.22)
Unemployed1-0.59(0.60) 0.93(0.65) 0.09(0.54) -1.14(0.83)
Not in the active labor force1-1.12*(0.30) 0.03(0.35) 0.73*(0.35) -0.13(0.44)
Male 0.33(0.23) 0.40(0.30) -0.42(0.32) 0.12(0.40)
Married -0.43(0.14) 0.14(0.32) -0.52(0.41) 0.29(0.49)
Chi-Square 219 74
Pseudo R-Square 0.34 0.23
Downloaded by [Emek Hayarden College] at 22:30 01 February 2016
ISRAEL AFFAIRS 243
they are perceived as Israelis. As for Jewish identity, the results presented in
Model 2B show that among Ethiopian immigrants, the odds of believing that
veteran Israelis define them as a Jew (versus Ethiopian) tend to decrease with the
length of time in Israel (as implied by the statistically significant and negative
coefficient: b = ‒0.08). Other socio-economic attributes exert no significant
effect on Ethiopian immigrants’ perception of their identity (as the majority
group defines it).
Discussion and conclusions
This article examined national identities of two groups of immigrants that
came to Israel in significant numbers in the last two decades, from Ethiopia
and from the former Soviet Union. Whereas previous studies have investi-
gated the issue of immigrant identity from the perspective of immigrants’
own self-definition, the present research examines immigrant identity fol-
lowing Cooley’s ‘looking-glass’ theory. According to this theory, people in
our social life serve as a mirror through which we see ourselves. In other
words, the identity of the individual is not necessarily reflected only in
his self-definition, but also in his perception of how others define him.
Applying the ‘looking-glass’ theory to the context of relationships between
ethnic groups in Israeli society, it is reasonable to suggest that immigrant
perception of how the majority group – veteran Israelis – defines them is
most relevant to the question of immigrant identity.
Following this definition of identity, our study reveals that among Ethiopian
immigrants in Israel, their Ethiopian identity is most highly pronounced,
while among FSU immigrants, Russian and Israeli identities have almost equal
weight.
An individual’s national identity may also be viewed as an ‘admission
ticket’ to a certain collective. To be included in the Israeli-Jewish collective, an
individual must hold at least one of the two identities: Israeli or Jewish. e
admission of immigrants to the Israeli-Jewish collective depends not only on
their self-definition as Israelis or Jews, but also on their belief that this defi-
nition is accepted by the majority population. Among Ethiopian immigrants,
the findings reveal little congruence between their self-definition and their
perception of how the majority veteran group defines them. Most immigrants
from Ethiopia who define themselves as Israelis or Jews think that the majority
veteran population does not see them as such. is lack of congruence implies
that in the opinion of a substantive share of Ethiopian immigrants, the majority
population in Israel is still not ready to include them within the boundaries of
the Israeli-Jewish collective.
e findings regarding FSU immigrants show considerable congruence
between their self-definition and their belief as to how the veterans define
them. Most FSU immigrants who define themselves as Israelis think that the
Downloaded by [Emek Hayarden College] at 22:30 01 February 2016
244 S. HEILBRUNN ET AL.
majority group sees them as such. In other words, the Israeli identity of FSU
immigrants serves as an ‘admission ticket’ to the Israeli-Jewish collective.
It is noteworthy that in both groups most immigrants who define them-
selves as Jews do not believe that the majority group members use the same
definition for them. This result is not surprising, considering the history
of the two groups’ integration in Israeli society. The large immigration
wave from the FSU since 1989 brought to Israel, for the first time, a sub-
stantial number of immigrants who are not Jewish according to halacha
(the Jewish religious legal code that defines a Jew by his/her matrilineal
descent). Nevertheless, these individuals are entitled to citizenship upon
arrival according the 1950 Law of Return and its 1970 amendment.21 These
laws extend Israeli citizenship to every Jew by halachic definition, as well
as to the children and grandchildren of Jews, and to the spouses of Jewish
immigrants. As a result, this wave of FSU immigrants has challenged the tra
-
ditional definition of Jewishness in Israeli society. By comparison, Ethiopian
immigrants have faced reluctance on the part of the rabbinic authorities to
recognize their Jewishness and have experienced stigmatization due to their
skin colour. Thus, the immigration of Ethiopian Jews to Israel has provoked
a debate regarding race and Jewishness in Israel.22
Furthermore, our study found that the effects of socio-demographic charac-
teristics are strikingly different for both groups. Whereas these characteristics
have almost no effect on the identity of Ethiopian immigrants, they do affect
the identity of immigrants from the former Soviet Union. For example, FSU
immigrants’ belief that the veterans see them as Israelis (applying the ‘look-
ing-glass’ theory’s identity definition) strengthens with the number of years in
Israel, with the degree of religiosity, and with fluency in Hebrew. us, these
three attributes apparently relate to the degree of integration and acculturation
in the new country, which is a contributing factor to the acquisition of Israeli
identity. It is interesting to note that Raijman and Hochman found that tenure
in the country, fluency in Hebrew, and level of religiosity are the main char-
acteristics according to which Israeli-Jewish veterans define who is an Israeli
and who is not.23
The influence of socio-demographic characteristics on Ethiopian immi-
grants is much less pronounced, and even points in directions different from
those expected when following the literature on immigrant integration. The
number of years in the country reduces Ethiopian immigrants’ belief that
the majority group members perceive them as Jews (versus Ethiopians), and
active participation in the labour market reduces their belief that the major-
ity views them as Israelis. This finding may imply that with tenure in Israel,
and with participation in the labour market, Ethiopian immigrants become
aware that the majority group does not tend to include them in the bound-
aries of the Israeli-Jewish collective. It seems, therefore, that for Ethiopian
immigrants (a visible minority), time in the country and interaction in
Downloaded by [Emek Hayarden College] at 22:30 01 February 2016
ISRAEL AFFAIRS 245
the labour market is counterproductive to receiving an admission ticket to
Israeli society. It is thus possible to conclude that the theoretical argument
that labour market integration and length of time spent in the host country
as are the most important contributing factors of social integration does not
necessarily apply to all groups. Future research should definitely investigate
these somewhat surprising findings in order to increase understanding of
underlying social, cultural, and political processes.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1. Lewin-Epstein et al., “Institutional Structure and Immigrant Integration.”
2. Berry, “Psychology of Immigration.”
3. Regarding Israel’s case, see Horenczyk and Ben-Shalom, “Multicultural Identities
Adaptation”; Peres and Ben-Rafael, Cleavages in Israeli Society. For international
studies, see Frideres, “Immigrants, Integration, Identities Intersection”; Matsunaga
et al., “Ethnic Identity Development”; Phinney et al., “Ethnic Identity, Immigration,
Well-being”; and Stryker and Burke, “Identity eory.”
4. Al-Haj, “Identity Patterns”; Ben-Rafael et al., Building a Diaspora; and Kurman,
Eshel, and Zehavi, “Personal and Group Acculturation Attitudes.”
5. Cooley, Human Nature.
6. Ibid., 184.
7. Shrauger and Schoeneman, “Symbolic Interactionist View of Self-concept.”
8. Cooley, Human Nature, 84.
9. Cohen and Haberfeld, “Self-selection and Earnings Assimilation”; Peres and
Ben-Rafael, Cleavages in Israeli Society.
10. Ben-Rafael, Olstein, and Geist, Perspectives of Identity.
11. Shab tay, Between Reggae and Rap.
12. . Hacohen, “Mass Immigration”; and Peres and Ben-Rafael, Cleavages in Israeli
Society.
13. Central Bureau of Statistics, “Press Release.”
14. Hacohen, “Mass Immigration.”
15. Remennick, “Language Acquisition, Ethnicity”; and Peres and Ben-Rafael,
Cleavages in Israeli Society.
16. Lazin, “Israel and Ethiopian Jewish Immigrants.”
17. Offer, “Ethiopian Community in Israel”; Elias and Kemp, “New Second
Generation.”
18. Al-Haj, “Identity Patterns”; Chiswick, “Economic Progress of Immigrants”; and
Chiswick, “Immigrant Earnings.”
19. For further information on the sampling procedure, see Amit, “Determinants
of Life Satisfaction.”
20. We acknowledge that single item measures are oen less capable of capturing
complex social phenomena than multi-item measures, and may suffer from
possible reliability issues. However, the measures we used are theoretically
Downloaded by [Emek Hayarden College] at 22:30 01 February 2016
246 S. HEILBRUNN ET AL.
relevant and validated by their content. ese measures are based on
straightforward questions and do not raise the typical problems of meaning
and interpretation that generally accompany attitudinal research.
21. Elias and Kemp, “New Second Generation.”
22. Ibid.
23. Raijman and Hochman, “National Attachments, Economic Competition.”
Notes on contributors
Sibylle Heilbrunn is Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities at the
Kinneret College on the Sea of Galilee.
Anastasia Gorodzeisky is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Sociology and
Anthropology of Tel Aviv University.
Anya Glikman is a postdoctoral fellow in Sociology at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem.
References
Amit, K. “Determinants of Life Satisfaction among Immigrants from Western Countries
and from the FSU in Israel.” Social Indicator Research, no. 96 (2010): 515–534.
Al-Haj, M. “Identity Patterns among Immigrants from the Former Soviet Union in Israel:
Assimilation vs. Ethnic Formation.” International Migration, no. 40 (2002): 49–70.
Ben-Rafael, E., E. Olstein, and E. Geist. Perspectives of Identity and Language in the
Absorption of Immigrants from the FSU. e Institute for Research and Development
in Education, Jerusalem: e Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1998.
Be n-R afael, E., M. Yubansky, O. Glockner, and P. Harris. Building a Diaspora: Russian
Jews in Israel, Germany, and the USA. Leiden, e Netherlands: Brill, 2006.
Berry, J. W. “e Psychology of Immigration.” Journal of Social Issues, no. 57 (2001):
615–631.
Central Bureau of Statistics. Press Release: e Ethiopian Community in Israel,
15.11.2009.
Chiswick, B. “e Economic Progress of Immigrants: Some Apparently Universal
Patterns.” In Contemporary Economic Problems, edited by W Fallner, 357–99.
Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1979.
Chiswick, B. R., and P. W. Miller. “Immigrant Earnings: Language Skills, Linguistic
Concentrations and the Business Cycle.” Journal of Population Economics, no. 5.1
(2002): 31–57.
Cohen, Y., and Y.Haberfeld. “Self-Selection and Earnings Assimilation: Immigrants from
the Former Soviet Union in Israel and the United States”. Demography, no.44 (2007):
649–668.
Cooley, C.H.. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s
Sons, 1902. Reprint New-York: Schocken Books, 1964.
Elias, N., and A. Kemp. “e New Second Generation: Non-Jewish Olim, Black Jews and
Children of Migrant Workers in Israel.” Israeli Studies, no. 15 (2010): 73–94.
Frideres, J. “Immigrants, Integration, and the Intersection of Identities”. Working Paper.
Ottawa: Canadian Heritage, 2002.
Downloaded by [Emek Hayarden College] at 22:30 01 February 2016
ISRAEL AFFAIRS 247
Hacohen, D. “Mass Immigration and the Demographic Revolution in Israel.” Israel
Affairs, no. 8 (2002): 177–190.
Horenczyk, G., and U. Ben-Shalom. “Multicultural Identities Adaptation of Young
Immigrants in Israel.” In Ethnicity, Race and Nationality in Education: A Global
Perspective, edited by MK Shimaraha, I Holowinsky and S Tomlinson-Clark, 57–80.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 2001.
Kurman, J., Y. Eshel, and N. Zehavi. “Personal and Group Acculturation Attitudes and
Adjustment: Russian and Ethiopian Immigrants in Israel.” Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, no. 35 (2006): 956–974.
Lazin, F. A. “Israel and Ethiopian Jewish Immigrants.” Society, no. 39 (2002): 56–62.
Lewin-Epstein, N., M. Semyonov, I. Kogan, and R. A. Wanner. “Institutional Structure
and Immigrant Integration: A Comparative Study of Immigrants’ Labor Market
Attainment in Canada and Israel.” International Migration Review, no. 37 (2003):
389–420.
Matsunaga, M., M. L. Hecht, E. Elek, and K. Ndiaye. “Ethnic Identity Development and
Acculturation: A longitudinal Analysis of Mexican-Heritage Youth in the Southwest
United States.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, no. 41 (2010): 410–427.
Offer, S. “e Ethiopian Community in Israel: Segregation and the Creation of a Racial
Cleavage.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, no. 30 (2007): 461–480.
Peres, Y. and E.Ben-Rafael, E. Cleavages in Israeli Society. Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 2007 (in
Hebrew).
Phinney, J. S., G. Horenczyk, K. Liebkind, and P. Vedder. “Ethnic Identity, Immigration,
and Well-Being: An International Perspective.” Journal of Social Issues, no. 57 (2001):
493–510.
Raijman, R., and O. Hochman. “National Attachments, Economic Competition, and
Social Exclusion of Non-Ethnic Migrants in Israel: a Mixed Method Approach.”
Quality and Quantity, no. 45 (2011): 1151–1174.
Remennick, L. “Language Acquisition, Ethnicity, and Social Integration among Former
Soviet Immigrants of the. “in Israel”.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, no. 27, no. 2004
(1990s): 431–454.
Shabtay, M. Between Reggae and Rap: e Integration Challenge of Ethiopian Youth in
Israel. Tel Aviv: Cheri kove r, 2001.. (in Hebrew).
Shrauger, J. S., and T. J. Schoeneman. “Symbolic Interactionist View of Self-Concept:
through the Looking Glass Darkly.” Psychological Bulletin, no. 86 (1979): 549–573.
Stryker, S. and P.J.Burke. “e Past, Present, and Future of Identity eory”. Social
Psychology Quarterly, no.63(2000): 284–297.
Downloaded by [Emek Hayarden College] at 22:30 01 February 2016
