Although migration has historically developed in parallel with human history, the regional conflicts that intensified in the post–Cold War period significantly increased the number of actors affected by it. Migration not only impacts individuals who leave their homelands but also affects the host society and state. Migrants are strangers to the places they arrive at, just as host societies are unfamiliar with the migrants’ cultures. Particularly in cases of forced mass migration due to war or conflict, host communities do not always respond with receptiveness. This situation leads to exclusion, housing shortages, unemployment, and related financial deprivation for migrants. Policymakers, concerned about maintaining social harmony, have sought to manage this process through policies such as adaptation, assimilation, integration, or multiculturalism. Although these terms are often used interchangeably, they differ substantially in content and in the policies they correspond to. This study examines the concepts of adaptation and integration within the literature and discusses Turkey’s stance on the matter.
In today’s globalized world, migration has become a daily reality. Looking at Turkey’s migration history, one sees that various migration flows have occurred since the country’s foundation for different reasons and in different forms. Owing to its geographical location, Turkey has been directly affected by developments in neighboring countries and in regions with which it shares historical, cultural, or ethnic ties. The population exchanges of the early Republican era were followed by diverse migratory movements, which led to more complex state policies over time.
Turkey’s migration policy has largely been framed within the logic of the nation-state. Its 1961 accession to the 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees—with a geographical limitation—already indicated how it would approach migration issues. The policy of building a cohesive society pursued in the early years of the Republic was sustained through subsequent legislation such as the 1994 Asylum Regulation, the 2005 National Action Plan on Asylum and Migration, and the 2006 Settlement Law (Law No. 5543).
Identity has played a central role in Turkey’s approach to migration. Policies have been shaped by security concerns, prioritizing the preservation of a homogenous population in quantitative terms. As a result, until the 1980s, Turkey did not encounter large numbers of non-ethnic migrants. However, when conflicts in nearby regions brought non-Turkic groups to its borders, the validity of Turkey’s naturally assimilationist policy of “harmonious absorption” came into question. This raised the issue of how social cohesion could be preserved. To address such challenges, states have adopted assimilation, integration, or adaptation policies aimed at enabling migrants to become part of the host society. While Turkey has no single, clearly defined migration policy, its stance has largely favored adaptation policies.
Migration entails not only the movement of people but also cultural encounters. The interaction of different cultures may produce disharmony and, in some cases, conflicts that begin at the cultural level and spread into other areas of society. To prevent such outcomes, policymakers attempt to foster social cohesion. In this regard, assimilation, integration, and adaptation are the three most frequently employed terms. While often used interchangeably, they in fact refer to different processes. The ambiguity is reinforced by the absence of universally accepted definitions of “integration” and “assimilation.” Indeed, the concept of “integration” originates outside the social sciences. In its simplest sense, integration refers to the process by which previously distinct entities interact to form a coherent, functional whole—making the term more fitting in engineering contexts.
In migration studies, however, integration refers to migrants’ inclusion in the host society on an equal basis. Sociologically, it is defined as the process by which individuals or groups become part of a larger society, learning its values and rules of conduct. Integration policies thus aim to ensure migrants’ social participation and cohesion through active engagement. Migrants are expected to preserve their cultural identity while acquiring proficiency in the host country’s language and developing a sense of loyalty to its fundamental values. Although often perceived as a one-sided process that primarily targets migrants, integration actually requires reciprocity: newcomers must be willing to learn the host society’s norms, while the majority population must adopt an inclusive stance.
Assimilation, on the other hand, represents a stricter version of integration. It entails migrants adopting the culture, behavior, and experiences of the host society to such an extent that they dissolve into it. This requires the erosion of the migrants’ own cultural identity, which renders assimilation exclusionary and normatively problematic. For this reason, assimilation has been the most heavily criticized of the three approaches.
Adaptation offers a more balanced alternative, emphasizing both the protection of migrants’ personal rights and the facilitation of their acceptance by the host society. Unlike integration or assimilation, adaptation allows migrants to preserve their own identities and cultures while participating in the new society. Defined literally as “harmony among the parts of a whole,” adaptation in the sociological sense refers to a pluralist, reciprocal order where differences and diversity are not seen as threats. It is voluntary in nature, which sets it apart from assimilation and integration. For migrants, this provides a more favorable environment for maintaining their cultural distinctiveness while coexisting with others. However, the persistence of nation-state ideologies since the French Revolution, often intensifying rather than weakening, has made states wary of adaptation-based policies. While governments frequently use inclusive rhetoric, their practices often reveal gaps in implementation.
Historically, as the Ottoman Empire’s successor state, Turkey has always dealt with migration. Although its policies have generally refrained from harsh restrictions, its selectivity has been evident. The geographical limitation in the Geneva Convention demonstrates that Turkey excluded groups considered potentially disruptive to social cohesion. Irregular migrants entering in small numbers were absorbed individually without major social disruption. Yet the mass influx of Syrians in 2011 forced Turkey to reassess its migration policies. Since, under its geographical limitation, Syrians could not be recognized as refugees, new legal definitions were required. With the adoption of the Law on Foreigners and International Protection (LFIP) in 2013, Turkey explicitly framed its policy in terms of adaptation. Article 96 of the law defines adaptation as activities designed to provide foreigners with the knowledge and skills necessary to act independently in all spheres of social life, whether in Turkey, a resettlement country, or upon return to their homeland.
In practice, Turkey has facilitated migrants’ access to education, healthcare, and employment opportunities. However, its treatment of the Syrian influx as temporary has undermined the adaptation process. Over 14 years, many Syrians have been born in Turkey, attended school, or participated in the labor force, making it clear that their presence has both social and economic permanence. Yet the temporary nature of Turkey’s adaptation framework, and the “guest” label assigned to Syrians from the outset, signal that while humanitarian needs would be met, no long-term prospects would be offered.
In conclusion, while assimilation, integration, and adaptation are often conflated, they differ significantly in both concept and practice. Assimilation, with its coercive and exclusionary nature, is widely criticized. Integration, while closer to adaptation, requires migrants to compromise their cultural distinctiveness in the process of inclusion. Turkey has historically distanced itself from both and favored adaptation. However, adaptation must be recognized as a two-way process: just as migrants are expected to adapt, host communities must also adjust to their presence. Turkey’s current shortcomings in this regard have at times led to hostility toward migrants. Looking ahead, Turkey must adopt comprehensive, reciprocal policies that determine the long-term status of migrants within the country. Only through such dual-sided strategies can sustainable migration governance be achieved.
References
Aykaç, S. A., ve M. Karakaş. 2022. “Entegrasyon, Asimilasyon ve Uyum Kavramları Arasından Türkiye’nin Seçimi.” İçtimaiyat Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Göç ve Mültecilik Özel Sayısı, no. 426.
Berry, John W. 1992. “Acculturation and Adaptation in a New Society.” International Migration 30: 69–85.
Cankara, Y., ve O. Çerez. 2020. “Tarihsel Süreç İçerisinde Afganistan’ın Göç Sorunu ve Türkiye’ye Yansımaları.” Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları 245: 447–60.
Faist, Thomas. 2018. A Primer on Social Integration: Participation and Social Cohesion in the Global Compacts. no. 161.
Goodman, Sara Wallace. 2009. Civic Integration Requirements and the Transformation of Citizenship. Georgetown University.
Güler, H. 2020. “Göç ve Entegrasyon: Türkiye’de ‘Uyum’ Ama Nasıl?” Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 11 (1): 245–68.
İnan, C. E. 2016. “Türkiye’de Göç Politikaları: İskân Kanunları Üzerinden Bir İnceleme.” Göç Araştırmaları Dergisi 3: 10–33.
TDK. 2025. “Sözlük Anlamı.” Erişim 13 Şubat 2025. https://sozluk.gov.tr/.
Türkiye Göç İdaresi Başkanlığı. 2025. “Uyum Hakkında.” Erişim 13 Şubat 2025. https://www.goc.gov.tr/uyum-hakkinda.
