Introduction: The Diaspora as a Psychological Terrain
The Indian diaspora is one of the largest in the world. According to recent estimates by the United Nations, over 18 million people of Indian origin live outside India, making it one of the largest diaspora populations globally (United Nations, 2023). Diasporic populations are far from homogenous. For instance, a software engineer from Silicon Valley, an immigrant’s offspring from Fiji, a student born in Birmingham, and a fresh arrival to Dubai can all be considered part of the Indian diaspora but exists in significantly different psychological experiences.
It is precisely the nature of this diversity that makes studying the psychological aspects of Indian diasporic identity both fascinating and problematic. According to theoretical approaches on identity in psychology and cultural studies, identity cannot be seen as an object but as a process of self-construction based on memories, past experiences, history, and social interactions. This process takes place for the diaspora groups under a unique set of circumstances: geographical dislocation from one’s birthplace, interaction with another culture, and negotiation within the realms of both worlds.
This paper argues that identity formation among Indians living outside India cannot be understood in terms of psychological theories of acculturation alone. Although these theories can explain certain aspects of identity formation, there are aspects of identity that cannot be captured without an appreciation of the social, historical, and cultural contexts of identity construction. By applying psychological theory in conjunction with a postcolonial framework, the concept of diasporic identity formation is seen to be one of dialogue and interaction.
Theories that deal with psychological aspects of culture, such as acculturation model proposed by John W. Berry and the concept of social identity, provide an understanding of the ways individuals adapt to a new environment. Nonetheless, these approaches are often concerned with the problem of individual adaptation to new settings. On the other hand, the postcolonial approach provides a different view on issues related to identity, with its primary representatives being Stuart Hall (1990) and Homi Bhabha (1994). According to these theories, identity is historically contingent, socially conditioned, and culturally represented.
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the psychology of diasporic identity formation from the perspectives of culture adjustment, historical situation, and social structures. The main goal of the paper is to analyse the processes of diasporic identities in regard to the way individuals find their place in the society, cultural mixture, as well as inter-generational conflicts. Psychological concepts will be integrated into postcolonial theory in order to prove that the process of diasporic identity formation is continuous.
Historical and Demographic Context
To comprehend the psychological aspects of diasporic Indians’ identity formation, one needs an understanding of the historical and social background of this phenomenon. The migration of Indians took place through several phases; each phase resulted in a new community having particular ties with the homeland as well as the country of residence. One of these waves is referred to as the “old diaspora.” In the aftermath of the official prohibition of slave trade in 1834, these Indian workers were forcefully taken abroad by British colonialists to such plantation colonies as Mauritius, Trinidad, Fiji, South Africa, and others. Having been separated from their native land for many years and forced to immigrate under colonial subjugation, these groups formed a unique identity.
The “new diaspora” mainly took shape after the independence of India in 1947 and was further strengthened due to immigration policies of nations like the UK and the US during the 1960s and 1970s. Such policies helped in the movement of highly skilled labor, including engineers, doctors, and scholars. This phase can be seen as a structural opening for the movement of Indians. However, it was only in the subsequent decades that these diasporic groups experienced a noticeable demographic growth. For example, the Indian Americans doubled their numbers from 1990 to 2000 (Bhatia & Ram, 2009).
In each case, there is a unique psychological landscape that arises from the trajectory in question. Whereas an individual whose great-great-grandfather was indentured labor from Trinidad is psychologically distant from “Indianness,” the immigrant on an H-1B visa who has only just arrived in New Jersey will have very real connections back home, both through technology as well as travel and other means. If we want an appropriate psychological analysis of Indian diasporic consciousness, then we need to take this into consideration.
Literature Review
Various approaches have been used in the study of diaspora identity. Some of these include psychological and cultural studies. Psychological approaches like the one by Berry (1997), which uses a framework of acculturation, view identity in terms of strategies for adaptation like integration, assimilation, separation and marginalisation.
Recent works on migration identity, however, have found these models too limited in their scope. According to Bhatia & Ram (2009), frameworks of acculturation often tend to consider identity to be a personal and apolitical phenomenon, disregarding the effect that historical factors, colonialism and power play in the formation of the identity of migrants.
In his work in cultural studies, Hall (1990) offers a different definition of identity in viewing it as a constant process of creation. Similarly, Bhabha (1994), in cultural studies, talks of the concept of “Third Space” where hybrid cultural identities come up through processes of cultural interaction.
Lastly, empirical research studies like Iwamoto et al. (2013), look at the experience of second-generation members of diaspora communities like the Indian diaspora concerning identity conflict, belongingness and racialisation.
Theoretical Frameworks
- Berry’s Acculturation Framework
The most important psychological theory regarding the formation of immigrant identity is John W. Berry’s bidimensional theory of acculturation. According to John W. Berry, immigrants face two issues at the same time, either maintaining their own culture or engaging themselves within the new culture. The interaction of these two issues creates four types of acculturation: integration (maintaining heritage culture and engaging with the new culture), assimilation (embracing the new culture and letting go of the heritage culture), separation (retaining the heritage culture but excluding the new culture), and marginalisation (disengagement from both the cultures) (Berry, 1997, p. 9).
The integration approach proposed by Berry has been validated empirically. It has been shown by many studies that integration (or biculturation), when compared to the other approaches, produces better psychological results in terms of reduced stress, enhanced self-esteem, and increased sociocultural adjustment (Sam and Berry, 2010, p. 484). As far as Indian immigrants are concerned, integration consists of keeping their language, whether Hindi or Tamil, in addition to English, celebrating their religious festivals in tandem with participation in civic life, and selectively embracing the social customs of the host country in a professional environment.
Nevertheless, the model of acculturation has been heavily criticised when used in a study of postcolonial diasporas such as Indians living in the West. According to Bhatia and Ram, the model presupposes a “fixed, invariant, and apolitical notion of acculturation” that is blind to the structural and political factors affecting the migrants (Bhatia and Ram, 2009, p. 5). In viewing acculturation as a psychological process with general characteristics, the model ignores the impact of race, colonialism, and unequal power dynamics on whether migrants can acculturate and how this process affects their psyche. Bhatia and Ram have provided a concrete illustration of this criticism in their interviews of Indian-Americans following the September 11 attacks in the US, where acculturation cannot occur voluntarily but through necessity due to racially-charged political events outside migrants’ control (Bhatia and Ram, 2009, pp. 7-8). In the realm of the Indian diaspora, this constraint becomes especially relevant since identity construction is not just a matter of cultural assimilation but is also influenced by factors such as racialisation, colonial pasts, and changing political environments. For instance, when Indian immigrants find themselves living in Western nations, their identity is not just something that they choose but something they are assigned.
- Stuart Hall and the Diasporic Self as Production
The following theoretically oriented text provides an example of a much more politically sensitive perspective on cultural identity, as exemplified in Stuart Hall’s seminal text entitled “Cultural Identity and Diaspora” (1990). As stated by Hall himself, there are two possible understandings of cultural identity. In the first case, cultural identity represents a fixed essence which diasporic communities must only discover and restore in their struggle against colonialism. Hall admits that such an essentialist concept of cultural identity is politically important but still inadequate.
This conception of Hall prefers cultural identity as a positioning, “not as a fixed essence, but as a set of practices which subjects ‘position’ themselves, through time, ‘always already within, and through, discourses’ (Hall, 1990, p. 394). In other words, diasporic identity is not what you discover when you reconnect to your ancestral homeland; it is what is continually made by cultural production, storytelling, and representation. An identity is both “a construction in the past and in the present and ‘belongs to the future as much as to the past’” and is constructed through memory and fantasy (Hall, 1990, p. 394). This conceptualisation has very important psychological implications. First of all, it implies that the anxiety felt by many diasporians in regard to preserving their “authentic” Indian identity is misguided, since there is no such thing as authentic Indian identity in the first place.
The model proposed by Hall resonates with the idea of the “dialogical self” proposed by Hubert Hermans who sees the self as a “multiplicity of rather autonomous positions within the personality, or voices, located in particular socio-cultural places”. In the case of members of the Indian diaspora trying to navigate between different cultures, their sense of self cannot be understood in terms of a coherent entity. Identity becomes more a process involving dialogue between, for example, one voice formed in the context of collectivism at home, another formed in the context of individualism in the new society where they live, and yet another formed by the condition of being a minority in that society.
It is very evident in the lived experiences of the diaspora. The second generation of Indian Americans tends to reinterpret certain cultural aspects such as festivals, language, and food differently from the first generation and American mainstream society. Rather than following tradition, they modify tradition, whereby they celebrate Diwali in community settings, speak English and get acquainted with Indian culture via media. This shows that identity is constructed as opposed to inheriting the same. According to Hall, identity is continuously produced through time.
The same trend is evident in British Indians whereby the second generation creates hybrid identities. For instance, the production of British-Asian music, cuisine, and language use (such as Hinglish) represents identity construction. From the above analysis, we realise that the idea of diasporic identity is not about returning to one’s own original culture but rather constructing a cultural identity in between the past and the present.
- Homi Bhabha and the Third Space
The third point worth noting is Homi Bhabha’s theory of the “Third Space” of cultural enunciation, as explained in his seminal text, The Location of Culture (1994). According to Bhabha, the cultural meaning that is being conveyed from one agent to another cannot be communicated clearly and openly; instead, it must undergo translation, negotiation, and transformation. This process takes place in what is known as the “Third Space,” which is not the motherland nor the receiving land but somewhere else entirely.
When applied to the Indian diaspora, Third Space Theory is able to describe a situation that many members of the diaspora understand intuitively but find difficult to explain in terms of existing identity frameworks. An individual who is born in Britain to Indian parents and who grows up speaking Gujarati, going to the temple on Diwali, and actively participating in British civil society at the same time does not move back and forth between two cultures; rather, he/she lives in a third space, a new kind of culture that combines aspects of both worlds without being entirely one or the other (Bhatia and Ram, 2009, p. 8).
The combination of both theories shifts the issue of identity in diaspora studies from one of maintaining identity or losing culture to one of creating culture and negotiating it. Instead of preserving their identity in the wake of disruptive migration, diaspora individuals must create a kind of “robustness” within their identities that can withstand the tension inherent in being part of a diaspora community.
Collectively, these theoretical standpoints point out some serious drawbacks in attempting to explain diasporic identities from one point of view. Firstly, the approach suggested by Berry is well-grounded and gives a good psychological explanation of the ways diasporic individuals deal with their adaptation process; yet, there is a certain assumption underlying this theory that people can act individually within the context and that cultures are neutral in terms of their social implications. By comparing the concept suggested by Hall about culture production and identity formation with the idea of Bhabha regarding “Third Space,” one may conclude that identity development occurs not only because of psychology but also because of history and power.
Psychological Consequences: Belonging, Alienation, and Double Consciousness
Based on the various theories described earlier, the psychological effects of being a diaspora identity should not be seen merely as an effect of adjustment, but rather as an expression of identity negotiation as influenced by both internal and external factors. As noted above, some of the theoretical approaches offer insight into how diaspora identity is formed, and it is important now to consider the impact of such an identity formation on the psyche of the individual. Two major emotional states associated with the experiences of a diasporic individual are those of belongingness, pride, and intehrculturality versus alienation, cultural displacement, and what W. E. B. Du Bois called “double consciousness.”
The idea, which was first introduced by Du Bois in The Souls of Black Folk (1903) to characterise the experiences of African-Americans, can be broadly applied to diasporic and postcolonial situations. “Double consciousness” involves the feeling of “looking at one’s self through the eyes of others,” meaning that the individual assesses him/herself based on the contemptuous attitudes and values that do not recognise his/her full humanity (Du Bois, 1903, p. 3). In the case of Indians who migrated to Western societies, double consciousness can be seen in their constant feelings of racial and cultural differences, where the individual realises that he/she is viewed as both the ethnic other and an invisible person. The second-generation Indian Americans participating in phenomenological studies shared personal experiences of racial discrimination, ranging from direct insults and radicalisation to the perception of being a “perpetual foreigner” regardless of the amount of time spent in the US (Iwamoto et al., 2013, p. 228).
Alienation among individuals in the diaspora comes in different guises. First-generation migrants may find themselves alienated from their own social networks, language groups, and cultures; in academic terms, this phenomenon is referred to as “acculturative stress” (Berry, 1997, p. 17). According to research studies, acculturative stress may be especially pronounced among migrants with unmet expectations from the host society, migrant workers facing racism in the host country, and individuals whose credentials are not recognised in the new environment. For instance, a study conducted on Indian migrants residing in Europe shows that Indian professionals are faced with a paradoxical situation wherein indicators of professional success are accompanied by experiences of exclusion on the basis of race and culture (Bhatia and Ram, 2009, p. 7).
On the other hand, cultural community and belonging offer immense psychological benefits. Social Identity Theory, proposed by Tajfel and John, holds that membership in groups is an essential foundation of self-respect and psychological wellbeing. It has been proved through various studies that individuals with a strong sense of identity, both ethnic and cultural identities included, are better equipped to deal with psychological pressure, offering them a sense of meaning, purpose, and solidarity in difficult circumstances (Brance et al. 2). The role played by ethnic community groups, churches, and cultural societies for the diasporas in question cannot be denied; it is within such organisations that Indian diasporas gain the aforementioned feeling of belonging and community.
The part that religion plays must be emphasised. Studies have proven time and again that the Indian American population often tends to increase their involvement in Hinduism, Sikhism, 1or any other religious faith in their lives in the diaspora, as a way of maintaining their ethnicity and deriving emotional support from religion (Bhatia and Ram, 2009, p. 5). It can be interpreted to a certain extent that this is separation and integration in public life, as defined by Berry, and may be an adaptive mechanism despite not being fully covered by the acculturation models.
Intergenerational Dynamics and the Second Generation
A number of the sharpest psychological aspects of the diasporic condition come into play when there is a shift from one generation to the next. The first generation of Indians to have migrated retains vivid memories of their native land and also sustains robust transnational relations, and their approach towards cultural identity is that of preservation. The second generation, born or brought up in the new country, exists in a completely different psychological space.
The second-generation members of Indian Americans and British Indians are brought up in an environment that is both steeped in their parents’ culture as well as the broader culture of the new country they live in. As put forward by one of the participants of a phenomenological study, they find themselves being caught in a dilemma wherein they are viewed as “too Indian” to be accepted in mainstream society or “not Indian enough” to be considered part of the ethnic group (Iwamoto et al., 2013, p. 229).
The problem is brilliantly explored in literature, such as Jhumpa Lahiri’s novel The Namesake (2003). This story follows the life course of two generations of the Gangulis as they move between their nostalgia for India and their son Gogol’s intense dislike for his ethnic origins in America. Through Gogol’s changing names, which start from rejecting his father-given Bengali name and end with his accepting it, the author vividly describes how second-generation people go through the process of rejecting ethnic culture at a certain point in time because of the desire to become integrated into society, then reconsidering it after maturing and understanding the roots better.
The above example is an indication that the nature of intergenerational conflict among diaspora groups goes beyond culture; rather, it is rooted psychologically, involving issues like identity dissonance, role conflict, and meaning conflicts. The younger generation finds itself caught between cultural norms imposed upon them by their immigrant parents on the one hand, and normative structures offered by the host nation on the other, leading to a divided self-concept. Instead of viewing this conflict situation as dysfunctional, it acts as a vital point of identity formation. Literary portrayals of such issues do not take place of scientific analysis but are widely used as examples in diaspora studies.
Intergenerational conflict is an inherent part of the family structure of diasporic communities. The first generation of parents tends to pass on cultural values that are embedded in collectivist cultures, placing importance on family responsibilities, social status, and cultural heritage. On the other hand, the second generation of individuals is imbued with individualistic values such as autonomy and self-expression, which are prevalent in many Western countries (Jacob 45-48). Studies highlight several recurring sources of conflicts between immigrants and their offspring, including marriage (specifically endogamy), career preference, gender norms, and retention of native languages. These conflicts go beyond cultural differences; they have a profound psychological impact, causing individuals to feel guilty, torn loyalties, and “cultural dissonance,” which refers to the incoherence of an individual’s value system (Jacob, 2017, pp. 45-48).
Simultaneously, however, there is evidence that second-generation immigrant identity can be psychologically resilient as well. The trajectory of ethnic identity formation among second generation Indian immigrants is often one that moves from early ethnic misidentification or evasion to a phase of exploration and increasing ethnic engagement, ending in a phase of ethnic identity achievement wherein the individual comes to form a positive and affirming understanding of his cultural identity as part of a larger identity construct, whether bi-cultural or multi-cultural in nature (Iwamoto et al., 2013, p. 233). This implies that identity among second-generation immigrants is not only one marked by conflict but is also continuously negotiated between cultural pressures from the family and personal experiences within the host country. Far from being seen as a liability, this tension is commonly harnessed to fuel identity formation and adaptation.
Structural and Policy Context
Identities do not arise in a void; identities are strongly influenced by the structural context of the society in which the diasporic groups live, such as their immigration policies, their multicultural models, their racial structure, and the welfare benefits they provide. A sociopolitical climate that promotes and encourages multiculturalism offers a different kind of psychological context from one based on assimilationism.
It should be noted that states adopt different policies towards cultural diversity. The Canadian approach is based on the multiculturalism policy that is officially recognised in Canada since 1988 and which contributes to the cultural preservation and expression of ethnic minorities. In turn, the approach in the United Kingdom has been inconsistent in this regard, involving periods of both multiculturalism and assimilation. Unlike Canada and the UK, the United States have not developed any policy related to multiculturalism but followed the civic pluralistic approach that allows ethnic diversity despite assimilation pressures. This difference has psychological effects. Specifically, it was discovered that a positive attitude towards multiculturalism positively correlates with such outcomes as ethnic identity and well-being (Berry, 1997, pp. 25-28).
The problem of discrimination and exclusion on racial grounds requires further examination. From the perspective of epidemiology, discrimination and stereotyping related to race are linked to depression, anxiety, and decreased self-esteem (Iwamoto et al., 2013, p. 226). In the case of Indian communities, radicalisation has occurred under unique historical conditions. The United Kingdom is characterised by systematic discrimination against and occasional racial violence towards South Asians, combined with the “Islamophobic” discrimination that emerged after 9/11 and applies not only to Muslim Indians but also, by virtue of generalising racial characteristics, to Hindus and Sikhs. India immigrants in the United States are in a peculiar position, being members of the “model minority,” a concept implying collective prosperity and success in terms of economic and academic achievement without considering ethnic and cultural diversity or acknowledging the presence of discrimination and placing psychological pressure on individual performance (Bhatia and Ram, 2009, p. 8).
The phenomenon of digital technologies and social media has added a new structural element to the psychology of diaspora identity formation in the modern world. The Internet allows members of the first generation to be continuously linked to their native land through the consumption of news from India, participation in online religious communities, and communication with families over distances. Members of the second generation are afforded access through digital technologies to the culture of India in the form of music, films, and literature. Through this, a notion of “multiple affiliations” or transnational identities can be developed by individuals according to sociologist William Safran, where there is a dual identification with the native homeland and the host country (Safran, 1991, p. 83).
These structures clearly show that the creation of diasporic identity cannot be considered a purely psychological process. Rather, it is highly affected by structures of recognition, exclusion, and power that characterise the host society. This relationship between the psychological construction of identity and institutional structure shows the necessity to integrate the two aspects into one theory.
Case Studies
All these theoretical perspectives can be further enhanced through concrete examples drawn from particular diaspora experiences. For example, there has been significant change in the experience of Indian Americans in the post 9/11 era in the United States. According to many, there has been a change in how they view themselves, as now they feel racially constructed and considered “foreign,” irrespective of being citizens of the country.
As another example, there have been reports of how the second generation people in British-Indian diaspora communities adopt hybrid identities. As per research, such people pick bits from both cultures to create a unique cultural identity that is neither purely Indian nor British. Thus, in this case, the theory of the “Third Space” as enunciated by Bhabha gets reflected.
Conclusion: Toward a Transnational Psychology of Diaspora Identity
It is for this reason that rather than employing models based on the assumptions regarding the universality, individuality, and political neutrality of acculturation processes, a more appropriate analysis should be carried out with the help of models highlighting the contextual aspects involved in the construction of self amongst migrants. Berry’s acculturation model can serve a good analytical purpose in this regard, although it does require further augmentation by theories such as those of Hall, Bhabha, and others concerned with critical diasporas.
The Indian Diaspora offers a study in complexity of a unique order. The people involved represent different continents, different generations, different religions, and different classes of society. They belong to societies whose capacity to accept and integrate multiculturalism varies in degree. All that binds them together, rather than any common cultural essence, is the common situation of having to build coherent, viable identities amid the challenges of displacement, cultural diversity, and racial identification.
Several key insights can be drawn from the literature on psychology presented in this paper. Firstly, belongingness and alienation are not mutually exclusive states but rather parallel dimensions of the diasporic experience, and being able to embrace both at once may be considered an example of psychological ambidexterity, which is one of the key attributes of a successful diaspora experience. This idea of psychological ambidexterity indicates that the ability to occupy various cultural identities at once is not a weakness but rather an adaptation strategy. Instead of trying to reconcile the dichotomy of belonging and dissonance, members of the diaspora tend to maintain both. In this way, the paradox of being becomes coherent. This perspective contradicts the traditional approaches to psychology which stress the need for balance. Secondly, while integration into two cultures, known as biculturalism, is likely to result in positive psychological outcomes for diaspora individuals, the process itself cannot occur automatically due to the lack of supportive structures such as anti-discrimination policies and multiculturalism. Thirdly, differences between generations regarding their diaspora identity are not mere clashes between tradition and modernity but represent actual value contradictions that need to be addressed carefully.
Finally, the theoretical perspectives offered by Hall and Bhabha indicate that the hybridity, processuality, and incompleteness of diaspora identity means that it is intrinsically creative. The “Third Space” of the Indian diaspora has created unique cultural expressions through its writing, music, cooking, religious practice, and social organisation, which contribute not only to the communities where diaspora individuals find themselves but to world culture as a whole. In this regard, the idea of diasporic identity is more than just a reaction to immigration; it is an ongoing process of self-construction through which people create viable selves within changing cultural contexts.
Works Cited
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46(1), 5 34.
Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29(6), 697–712.
Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. Routledge.
Bhatia, S. (2007). American karma: Race, culture, and identity in the Indian diaspora. New York University Press.
Bhatia, S., & Ram, A. (2009). Theorising identity in transnational and diaspora cultures: A critical approach to acculturation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2), 140–149.
Branscombe, N. R., et al. (2024). Social identity, mental health and the experience of migration. British Journal of Social Psychology, 63(2), 145–162.
Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903). The souls of Black folk. A. C. McClurg. Hall, S. (1990). Cultural identity and diaspora. In J. Rutherford (Ed.), Identity: Community, culture, difference (pp. 222–237). Lawrence & Wishart.
Hermans, H. J. M. (2001). The dialogical self: Toward a theory of personal and cultural positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7(3), 243–281.
Iwamoto, D. K., et al. (2013). The racial and ethnic identity formation process of second generation Asian Indian Americans. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 41(4), 224–239.
Jacob, V. (2017). Counselling Asian Indian immigrant families. Palgrave Macmillan.
Lahiri, J. (2003). The namesake. Houghton Mifflin.
Safran, W. (1991). Diasporas in modern societies: Myths of homeland and return. Diaspora, 1(1), 83–99.
Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (2010). Acculturation: When individuals and groups meet. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 472–481.
Schwartz, S. J., et al. (2010). Rethinking the concept of acculturation. American Psychologist, 65(4), 237–251.
Tinker, H. (1974). A new system of slavery. Oxford University Press. United Nations. (2023). International migration report.
Leave a Reply