Under the trend of globalization, the prevalence of multicultural society has surged. Leading to a debate about whether the immigrants should adapt to the local culture in an alien country or remain their own traditions at home in a minority group. Personally, I align with the former opinion.
On one hand, adhering to a small group maintaining their former culture eliminates drawbacks of inadaptability in an alternative country. As culture involves various aspects such as diets, education and ideologies, a majority of time and energy will be invested on fitting in and completely change their habits which were formed in their homelands, imposing cultural shocks to these immigrants. However, living within a community reduces the incidence of the issues mentioned.
On the other hand, cater to local culture grants them a more convenient life mode. In a different region, social assets are designed to meet the needs of majority of locales instead of minority group. For instance, the ingredients in the supermarket alter in terms of geographical distinctions, hindering outlanders to make original food. In addition, from the perspective of ideologies and the consequences they lead to, embracing indigenous culture prompts communications at the same mindset. For example, Chinese parents advocate compelling children to learn triggers good academic performances while common American education is never constrained to triggering advantaged scores, obeying children’s playful nature is of the most significance. As a result, the contradictions in educational concepts between the east and the west hinder home-school interactions and communications. Therefore, approving cultural identity of another contributes significantly to communications of divergent ethnicities compared to retaining their own cultural role.
In conclusion, though remaining unchanged in cultural identity in a minimal range reduces the incidence of cultural shock, be open-minded and show tolerance to other cultures tends to illustrate long-term implement.