Whether ’tis nobler to adapt or adopt, determines it all.

I had a brief discussion recently (though I really wouldn’t call it that, it was more like a question-answer short dialogue) that got me to thinking about the difference between acclimation and assimilation. Acclimation is defined as the process or result of becoming accustomed to a new climate or new conditions, according to the Oxford Dictionary. And assimilation is the absorption and integration of people, ideas, or culture into a wider society or culture.

I made the mistake of semi-defining acclimation as being similar to assimilation, but I was wrong. While both deal with an adjustment of sorts into a societal norm, one is more voluntary than the other.

When I saw the error of my ways, I began thinking about how both work and came to several points of view. The first is about acclimation: It seems to be an action that is usually forced – and I always think of children. For instance, when moving to a new location is considered, a child most often is not consulted (though the parents may consider a school district or close proximity to care). Or when a group of people gets disenfranchised or ostracized, they are forced to conform or perish. I guess acclimation evolves around survival.

Assimilation on the other hand is like a “grass is greener” approach to making a decision about a lifestyle. An individual sees what a certain person or group has and wants it, so that individual adopts or mimics the same lifestyle to fit in and be a part of whatever it is they were seeking. Again you can think of children who want to fit in with the “cool” kids – they set out to dress and talk the same in order to be accepted into that group. So assimilation evolves around personal satisfaction (or what a person perceives will provide it).

The sad part of both is that a person can get lost in either the survival mode or the effort of fitting in. No one can truly say they are themselves because everyone in some form is trying to do one or the other.