America S Melting Pot Reconsidered

America's Melting Pot Reconsidered
Author(s): Charles Hirschman

Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 9 (1983), pp. 397-423
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2946072 .
Accessed: 10/09/2013 09:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 186.206.117.224 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:00:57 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ann. Rev. Sociol. 1983. 9:397-423
Copyright ? 1983 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
AMERICA'S MELTING POT
RECONSIDERED
Charles Hirschman
Department of Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853
America is God's Crucible, the great Melting Pot where all the races of Europe are melting
and re-forming! Here you stand, good folk, think I, when I see them at Ellis Island, here you
stand in your fifty groups, with your fifty languages and histories, and your fifty blood
hatreds and rivalries. But you won't be long like that, brothers, for these are the fires of God
you've come to-these are fires of God. A fig for your feuds and vendettas! Germans and
Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians-into the Crucible with you all!
God is making the American.
Zangwill (1914:33)
INTRODUCTION
These powerful words are spoken by David, the young, idealistic Jewish
immigrant in Zangwill's pre-World War I play, The Melting Pot. In spite of the
horror of experiencing a pogrom in his native Russia, and the reality of
discrimination in the United States, David believes that the divisions of
nationality and ethnicity will soon disappear in the promised land of America.
And to clinch the point, the play ends with David falling in love with a Russian
Christian immigrant who just happens to be the daughter of the man who led the
massacre of David's family. Only in America!
This romantic vision of American society will strike most modem observers
as both naive and rather patronizing-because of the implicit assumption that
most immigrants and their descendants are anxious to shed their social and
cultural heritage. But it is easy to forget how radical was the melting pot view of
America's future. It was a direct challenge to orthodoxy. Zangwill was not
oblivous to the pervasive bigotry of his times; in fact, his play was a calculated
effort to expose these popular attitudes. There was nothing subtle about racism
397
0360-0572/83/08 15-0397$02.00
398 HIRSCHMAN
and intolerance in America for most of us the first half of this century. Perhaps a
few examples will illustrate the tenor of ethnic divisions during this period.
In response to a letter of mild criticism, Mayor Fiorella La Guardia of New
York received the following response from the then President, Herbert Hoover
(cited in Baltzell 1964:30):
It seems to me, a Republican, that you are a little out of your class, in presuming to criticize
the President. It strikes me as impudence. You should go back to where you belong and
advise Mussolini on how to make good honest citizens in Italy. The Italians are predominate-
ly our murderers and boot-leggers.... Like a lot of other foreign spawn, you do not
appreciate the country which supports and tolerates you.
And consider the candor of Havard President Lowell in publicly announcing
in 1922 a ceiling on the proportion of Jewish students at Havard. While other
elite universities also had Jewish quotas, they did so quietly, without the
rationalization that their aim was to minimize anti-Semitism (Steinberg
1974:21-30; Synnott 1979). Of course legal barriers including the denial of the
opportunity to vote and many other essential rights of citizenship, put black
Americans into a unique situation of powerlessness (Lieberson 1980:Ch. 3-5).
In spite of these realities, or perhaps because of them, the melting pot
became the symbol of the liberal and radical vision of American society. In a
sense, it was a political symbol used to strengthen and legitimize the ideology
of America as a land of opportunity where race, religion, and national origin
should not be barriers to social mobility. There is another interpretation of the
melting pot symbol, which represents the emphasis on "Americanization" of
immigrants around the turn of the century. While the melting pot image
suggests a blending of cultures, the process was essentially one of "anglo-
conformity" (Gordon 1964:Ch. 4). Immigrants were encouraged to learn En-
glish and to discard their "foreign ways" (ethnic culture). Ethnic spokesmen
resisted this interpretation of the melting pot as an attack on ethnic diversity
(Kallen 1915; see Gleason 1979, for a summary of the varied meanings of the
melting pot concept).
The melting pot was also a central element in the development of the
assimilation school of race and ethnic studies in American sociology. The
progressive social views of some scholars coincided with the theory positing
that race/ethnic divisions would eventually disappear, or at least be minimized,
in industrial society. More than ideology, this was an attempt to develop a
scientific thesis that would guide empirical research. The coincidence of the
effort to reject the ideological hegemony of social Darwinism and the early
emphasis on the empirical study of assimilation was not accidental, but it would
be a mistake to judge the origins of assimilation theory as a simple product of
liberal sentiment.
In this essay, I first review the origins and development of the assimilation
AMERICA'S MELTING POT 399
perspective in American sociology, in terms of both its theoretical and empiric-
al foundations. Then I review the evidence on whether there has been a trend
towards ethnic assimilation in the United States. Various dimensions of assi-
milation are included in the review, such as socioeconomic inequality, residen-
tial segregation, intermarriage, and popular attitudes. The intent is not to
provide a survey of race and ethnic relations as a whole (Williams 1975, 1980)
or to review the field from a comparative perspective (Wilson 1980b; van den
Berghe 1981) but rather to assess the state of the assimilation paradigm from
within its own frame of reference. Accordingly, the review of the empirical
literature is purposely limited to studies of ethnic and racial inequality in the
United States. While the assimilation model has been the dominant perspective
in sociological studies of ethnic relations, it has been the subject of much debate
as well as theoretical challenge. In the final part of the paper, I review some of
the major alternative theoretical frameworks and their implications for the
position of the assimilation perspective in guiding sociological research.
ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOLOGICAL
ASSIMILATION THEORY
Robert Park and the "Chicago School" of sociology (Faris 1967) were the
founders of modem sociological theory and research on race and ethnic rela-
tions in the early decades of the 20th century. Park and his colleagues at
Chicago encouraged students to study all aspects of the local environment,
including race and ethnic relations. At the time, Chicago was a polyglot city,
full of ethnic neighborhoods populated by recent immigrants from Europe and
black migrants from the South. Park had a rather unique background for an
academic, first working as a newspaper reporter and later spending a number of
years as the personal secretary and aide of Booker T. Washington, President of
Tuskegee Institute (for more background on Park, see Park 1950: v-ix;
Raushenbush 1979). From these experiences and their early studies, Park and
his students formulated what became the dominant sociological theory of race
and ethnic change.
One of the first expressions of Park's views was presented in the famous Park
& Burgess textbook (first published in 1921), the primary authority in the field
for almost 20 years (Park & Burgess 1969:xiii). Park & Burgess defined the
central terms of accommodation and assimilation:
Accommodation.... a process of adjustment, that is, an organization of social relations and
attitudes to present or to reduce conflict, to control competition, and to maintain a basis of
security in the social order for persons and groups of divergent interests and types to carry on
together their varied life activities.
Assimilation is a process of interpenetration and fusion in which persons and groups acquire
the memories, sentiments, and attitudes of other persons or groups, and, by sharing their
400 HIRSCHMAN
experience and history, are incorporated with them in a common cultural life (Park &
Burgess 1969:360).
They also suggested a sophisticated version of what later became labelled the
"contact hypothesis":
As social contact initiates interaction, assimilation is its final perfect product. The nature of
the social contacts is decisive in the process. Assimilation naturally takes place most rapidly
where contacts are primary, that is, where they are the most intimate and intense, as in the
area of touch relationship, in the family circle and in intimate congenial groups. Secondary
contacts facilitate accommodations, but do not greatly promote assimilation. The contacts
here are external and too remote (Park & Burgess 1969:361-2).
These ideas represent an early formulation of what later became Park's thesis
of the race-relations cycle of "contact, competition, accommodation and even-
tual assimilation" (Park 1950:150). Park believed that forces of change in
modem societies would tend to eradicate divisions based upon irrelevant
criteria of language, culture, and race. Park's many ideas on race and ethnic
relations were never tied together in a formal theory of change. However, there
appear to be two essential elements in his perspective. First, ethnic antagonism
and divisions arose naturally-from ethnocentrism and the competitive proces-
ses of modem society-after contact had been established. Second, there was
the inevitable process of assimilation-which could be slowed down, but not
reversed, in modem societies. The motors of change are the democratic
political institutions and the industrial organization of modem society that
recruits and promotes individuals on the basis of merit, not ethnic origin. For a
more detailed elaboration of Park's ideas, see Geschwender (1978:19-26).
These ideas have continued to be the hallmark of assimilation theory until the
present day. Gunnar Myrdal (1964) emphasized the moral dilemma in the
contrast between American ideals of equality and the practice of racial discri-
mination. He suggested that the democratic political process would eventually
override the forces of prejudice and discrimination. The associated hypothesis
that the economic organization of modem society is incompatible with discri-
mination is part of the broader thesis of industrialism (Kerr et al 1964). If
efficiency and productivity are the primary objectives of modem business, then
hiring and promotion decisions based upon kinship or other ascriptive criteria
will erode the competitive position of any firm. Modem society also brings
widespread urbanization and universal education, which facilitate bureaucratic
decision making on the basis of credentials and skills, not race or ethnicity.
These ideas underpin the most recent comprehensive empirical analysis of
change in racial and ethnic stratification in the United States (Featherman &
Hauser 1978:Ch. 6 & 8).
There has been considerable refinement and redirection of the dominant
paradigm of assimilation that began with Park. Frazier (1957) agreed that the
eventual outcome would be one of assimilation, but he emphasized the colonial
expansion of European peoples as the major factor that gave rise to the "race
problem." He noted that the economic interests that occasioned exploitation
would have to be curbed before tolerance based upon scientific knowledge
could triumph over prejudice and discrimination (Frazier 1957:Ch. 18). Lieber-
son (196 la) elaborates upon the natural history approach with a typology based
upon the relative power of populations and their migration status at contact.
Van den Berghe (1967) suggests an alternative model of change that begins
with a paternalistic and exploitative system of race relations rooted in the
traditional agrarian order. This system then shifts with industrialization to a
competitive system with a heightened degree of racial antagonism in modern
societies. Van den Berghe's (1981) most recent theoretical work begins with a
sociobiological framework but then turns to an exceedingly insightful review of
comparative ethnic relations. [For other broad theoretical perspectives, see
Shibutani & Kwan (1965), Newman (1973), and Schermerhorn (1970).]
Several critics have questioned the logic and content of Park's thesis, and of
any assimilation model. Lyman (1968) faulted Park's theory as an untestable
thesis that does not specify when changes in the race relations cycle will occur.
Since the theory could not be negated (assimilation has not yet occurred,
though it might in the future) it does not provide an adequate model for
research. Blumer (1965) directly challenged the argument that industrialization
will lead to a diminution of racial discrimination. He pointed out that the costs
associated with upsetting the racial order might be far greater for employers
than any gains received from meritocratic hiring and promotion. He concluded
that industrial organization will more likely adapt to existing racial/ethnic
mores rather than change them. Other critics of assimilation theory have
pointed to its ideological blinders (Metzger 1971), its deterministic logic, and
the assumption that all societies will follow a unilinear path of change (Barth &
Noel 1972).
In spite of these many weaknesses,
the assimilation
perspective,
broadly
defined, continues to be the primary theoretical framework for sociological
research on race and ethnic inequality. This results partially from a lack of
convincing theoretical alternatives. [For a sampling of recent general
essays,
see Simpson (1968), Gordon (1975), Parsons (1975), Abramson (1980), and
Yinger (1981).] For all its inadequacies, the assimilation perspective has served
to organize the field and to stimulate a broad range of empirical studies. Its role
as a general paradigm has been strengthened by several major studies, although
it continues to be plagued by controversy.
Gordon's (1964) landmark statement provided the long-needed clarification
of concepts that has guided much of the subsequent empirical research in the
field. He identified seven types of assimilation: cultural
(acculturation),
structural, marital (amalgamation), identificational, attitude receptional (abs-
402 HIRSCHMAN
ence of prejudice), behavioral receptional (absence of discrimination), and
civic (absence of value and power conflict). Although these types of assimila-
tion are obviously interrelated, Gordon's classification settled much of the
confusion by noting that the several dimensions of assimilation need not always
coincide. Gordon's own assessment of American ethnicity was that cultural
assimilation had largely been achieved, but that structural assimilation (espe-
cially within primary groups) had only been achieved in a few settings (e.g.
among intellectuals). Much of the recent empirical literature on structural
assimilation (reviewed below) has a direct or indirect link to Gordon's concep-
tual outline.
The latest reaction to the assimilation paradigm has come from the "revival
of ethnicity" school. In the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s, many scholars
and social observers argued that ethnicity remained an important, perhaps the
most important, source of social and political consciousness (Novak 1972).
Glazer & Moynihan (1970) have demonstrated the vitality of ethnic politics in
New York. Additionally, religion and nationality remain strong predictors of
political behavior and attitudes (Hamilton 1972:194-211). One of the most
influential proponents of the "ethnicity does matter" thesis is Andrew Greeley
(1974). He has documented that national origins groups in the United States
continue to exhibit important cultural differences. Before assessing these
claims and the criticisms of them (Steinberg 1981; Gans 1979), I review the
empirical evidence on the extent of assimilation in several domains of Amer-
ican society.
EVIDENCE ON TRENDS TOWARD ASSIMILATION IN
AMERICAN SOCIETY
As with many other general social science theories, the assimilation perspective
has gradually come to be understood as multidimensional and probabilistic.
Although for many critics any instance of negative evidence invalidates the
entire approach, it is likely that there will be wide variations in the degree of
assimilation, depending upon the dimension of assimilation and the ethnic
groups being examined (Gordon 1964). For instance, a trend toward equality of
schooling may not necessarily imply equality of occupational attainment. Nor
is it necessary to assume that patterns of assimilation are invariant over
time-e.g. for early 20th century European ethnic groups and for recent
immigrants. Since patterns change over time as group composition varies and
new structural conditions emerge, a timeless universal trend is not to be
expected. These variations insure that basic studies will be replicated, thus
providing the base for cumulative empirical inquiry and theoretical revision.
In this section, I provide a selective overview of the evidence on the extent
and degree of ethnic assimilation in American society, ordered by four key
indicators: socioeconomic inequality, segregation in housing and schools,
intermarriage, and prejudice. Since the periods, populations, methods of analy-
sis, and theoretical perspectives that guided the studies are diverse, it is not
possible to resolve conflicting findings or interpretations. However, some
general patterns are evident.
Socioeconomic Assimilation
Education is a key indicator of achievement in the socioeconomic hierarchy and
is also a resource (investment) that influences subsequent social and economic
mobility. For minorities and immigrants, schooling is seen as the primary step
toward full participation in American society. Since compulsory schooling, at
least through the secondary level, is provided free by the state, equality would
seem more likely here than in other institutions. Yet important barriers to equal
schooling exist-barriers institutionalized in the structure and content of the
schooling available to different populations. Moreover, differential family
resources and support have probably shaped educational opportunities and
goals across ethnic communities.
Until recent decades, black youth were particularly disadvantaged because
of the limited (and inferior) education offered in segregated schools in the
South, where the majority of blacks lived (Lieberson 1980:Ch. 6). In the latter
part of the 19th and early years of the 20th century, black migrants to the North
and their children had approximately equal (more in some cases) schooling than
first and second generation populations from South, East, and Central (SEC)
Europe (Lieberson 1980:Ch. 6 & 7). Lieberson argues, with considerable
evidence, that family structure and cultural orientations were not the reasons
why European ethnics were able to make faster educational gains than blacks in
the North. He suggests instead that prejudice hardened towards blacks in the
North during the second quarter of the 20th century (as black migration to
Northern cities continued) while discrimination against European immigrants
and their descendants declined. The interpretation of differential treatment is
consistent with the evidence from the Philadelphia Social History Project,
which reveals much greater discrimination against blacks than against white
immigrants, although racial socioeconomic gaps appear to be far wider in 19th
century Philadelphia than Lieberson observes in other Northern cities at the
same time (Hershberg et al 1979).
While educational differentials by race and ethnicity have not disappeared,
many recent studies point to a marked reduction in recent years (Duncan
1965:Ch. 4; Hauser & Featherman 1976; Featherman & Hauser 1978:329-34).
Yet there remain significant differences between the proportions of white and
minority youth (a) retained below their modal grade level (U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights 1978:Table 2.1) and (b) progressing from high school to college
(Mare 1981:Chart 4/1A). These exceptions notwithstanding, the general trend
404 HIRSCHMAN
is toward convergence in the quantity of schooling received. We know much
less about equality in the quality of schooling. This issue has been subject to
more speculative thought than careful study.
There is a considerable body of literature on trends and patterns of ethnic and
racial inequality in occupational attainment and incomes. Most of this research
focuses on the last two decades; but detailed historical studies are also available
(Wilson 1980a; Lieberson 1980; Bonacich & Modell 1980), which caution
against broad-sweeping generalizations about trends toward socioeconomic
assimilation. Patterns vary considerably for different populations, defined by
country of origin and race, and for different periods. The post-World War II
period, which witnessed renewed economic expansion and an expanded gov-
ernmental role, created a major break with the past, especially for racial
minorities (Wilson 1980a).
The popular saga of immigrant success, rising from poverty to the economic
mainstream, is not without foundation (Handlin 1951; Sowell 1981). Hutch-
inson (1956) observes a distinct shift toward more skilled occupations from
1910 to 1950 among the foreign-born and their children. Not only were the new
European immigrants highly motivated and anxious to improve opportunities
for their children, but the expansion of employment in the industrial cities of the
East and Midwest greatly facilitated their economic progress. Regardless of the
exact mix of reasons, European ethnic populations have made considerable
socioeconomic progress during the 20th century (Greeley 1974; Lieberson
1980). Recent studies of socioeconomic inequality by religion and ethnicity
show relatively minor differences (Goldstein 1969; Greeley 1978; Roof
1979a).
This general pattern of economic mobility is also evident in studies of recent
white immigrants to the United States (Chiswick 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980;
Massey 1981a:72-76). Not all old and new immigrants and their descendents
have made it in American society; most are not affluent, and a nontrivial
fraction remain at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder. However, ethnicity
and religion do not appear to be major predictors of an individual's education,
occupation, or earnings. Nor is there any sign of direct economic discrimina-
tion in recent years (Duncan & Duncan 1968). However, a long legacy of social
bigotry towards those of Southern and Eastern European origins-identified as
Catholics and Jews-has only slowly receded (Pavalko 1980). Baltzell (1964)
documents the pervasive anti-Semitism of the American elite that bars Jews
from private clubs and from the upper echelons of many corporate social
circles. See Auerbach (1976) for a well-documented study of intolerance and
exclusionary practices in the legal profession.
The economic problems faced by European ethnics pale in comparison to
those encountered by racial minorities and Hispanics. There was little trend
towards socioeconomic assimilation of these minorities prior to World War II,
which van den Berghe labeled as a period of Herrenvolk democracy (1967:77).
Although blacks left the rural South to migrate to cities in the South and North,
their economic opportunities were restricted to the bottom of the urban hierar-
chy (Wilson 1980a:Ch. 4; Geschwender 1978:Ch. 9). Lieberson (1980) notes
the hostility of organized labor, which limited mobility of blacks into skilled
manual occupations, as a factor fundamentally different from anything experi-
enced by SEC European ethnics. At the same time, widespread prejudice on the
West Coast, by elites and unions alike, froze Asians out of most sectors of the
general economy (McWilliams 1945; Daniels 1977). Perhaps most significant
was the acquiescence, and even the support, of the state in the maintenance of a
caste-like system in the racial division of labor during this era.
The system began to change towards the end of the New Deal era. After
receiving some protective legislation in the 1930s, labor unions, particularly
the CIO, began to organize blacks and whites on a common basis (Bonacich
1976; Geschwender 1977). After World War lI the federal government was
slowly but firmly directed toward an anti-discriminatory policy. Yet minority
economic gains were slow. The studies of Siegel (1965) and Duncan (1967,
1968, 1969) established societal discrimination as the major cause of black-
white economic inequality. Recent studies (Featherman & Hauser 1976; Farley
1977a; Hirschman & Wong 1982) show moderate gains in the socioeconomic
position of blacks and a reduction in the effect of discrimination, especially for
younger workers. However, blacks and to a lesser extent Hispanics [for an
excellent overview, see Tienda (1981)] remain in socioeconomic positions far
below those of European ethnic groups.
One of the most significant debates in recent years has been over William
Wilson's thesis of greater differentiation within the black population (1980b:
especially Ch. 8). Wilson argues that the moderation of societal discrimination
has improved the chances for social mobility of well-educated black youth but
that the plight of poorly educated black youth in central cities has worsened.
This pattern is not due to racial discrimination, Wilson contends, but rather to
structural changes in the economy that offers minimal employment (or none at
all) for the urban black "underclass".
On the other hand, Asian-Americans, especially those of Chinese and
Japanese origin, have made significant strides toward socioeconomic equality
with the majority population (Hirschman & Wong 1981, 1982). These gains
are more evident in education and occupational levels than in earnings. A
significant economic disadvantage for Chinese-Americans appears not to be
explained by the usual background variables (Wong 1982). [For more detailed
studies of Asian-American stratification, see Kuo & Lin (1977); Hurh et al
(1978); Montero & Tsukashima (1977); Montero (1981); and Woodrum
(1981).]
This reading of the evidence on trends in socioeconomic inequality provides
406 HIRSCHMAN
general support for the melting pot thesis for European ethnics, but not for
black Americans. Even during the growth era after World War II, and with
government opposing discrimination, progress has been hesitant; it may also
have favored blacks with the resources to take advantage of the new opportuni-
ties (Wilson 1980a).
Segregation
If racial and ethnic populations are separated by an uncrossable social gulf (as
where slavery is practiced), physical relations are often close and intimate. But
once the alternative of egalitarian social relationships is possible, physical
segregation is frequently used to maintain distance in all other spheres. Seg-
regation arises not only from the authority of the dominant population, but also
from a tendency among new immigrants to desire neighborhoods and local
institutions that reinforce their cultural orientations. An additional explanation
for segregation between ethnic populations may be an independent factor such
as social class or the availability of housing at the time of arrival. In this section,
I explore the evidence on these explanations as I review the literature on race
and ethnic segregation in American cities.
Studies of selected southern cities in the 19th and 20th centuries reveal that
there was considerably less black-white segregation then than now (Taeuber &
Taeuber 1965:45-53; Spain 1979). The "backyard pattern" reflected the ne-
cessity for blacks who worked in domestic and personal service to live close to
the homes of their employers. However, such proximity did not confer any
locational advantages. The homes of blacks were most often shacks in nearby
alleys, and Jim Crow laws strictly regulated behavior and limited opportunities.
Evidence from Northern cities during the first part of the 20th century also
shows less pervasive (than the present) but slowly increasing black-white
segregation (Taeuber & Taeuber 1965:53-55).
In 19th century Philadelphia, place of work was the primary determinant of
residential location, and this was the primary reason for ethnic segregation-
except for blacks, who were concentrated in black neighborhoods regardless of
employment (Hershberg et al 1979). Using a measure of isolation that taps the
potential for interaction, Lieberson finds that blacks in Northern cities were less
segregated from whites than were the new SEC European immigrants in the
early years of the 20th century (Lieberson 1980: Ch. 9). To Lieberson these
patterns reflect the greater cultural gap between SEC immigrants and native
whites than between blacks and whites and also a higher degree of voluntary
clustering by the new immigrants. But after 1910, ethnic segregation between
European immigrant groups and native whites steadily declined while black-
white segregation increased (Lieberson 1980:270-77).
This general pattern of declining white ethnic segregation and a widening or
maintenance of high black-white segregation is found in a wide variety of
empirical studies [for an overview, see Roof (1979b); for studies of ethnic
segregation, see Lieberson (1963); Guest & Weed (1976); for studies of racial
segregation, see Taeuber & Taeuber (1965); Van Valey et al (1977); Schnare
1980; for a dissenting interpretation, see Kantrowitz (1979, 1981)]. Regardless
of the definition of a neighborhood (blocks, census tracts) or the universe of
places (central cities, suburbs, or ubanized areas), there appears to have been
little or no decline in the level of residential segregation between blacks and
whites in urban areas of the United States through 1970. Moreover, there is
little systematic variation in segregation associated with city size, the propor-
tion of the minority population, or any other city characteristic. Racial segrega-
tion is a constant throughout the country.
With the exception of the Puerto Rican population (Rosenberg & Lake 1976;
Massey 198 lb), Hispanic populations seem to follow the pattern of European
ethnics more than the black population. Levels of Hispanic-Anglo segregation
are generally lower than black-white levels and seem to have moderated over
time (Massey 1979a, 1981a; Lopez 1981). Most significant is the fact that
increasing Hispanic socioeconomic status is associated with a lessening of
residential segregation (Massey 1979b), a pattern not found for blacks (Taeuber
& Taeuber 1964; Taeuber 1968; Farley 1977b).
The current cause of black-white residential segregation is not minority
choice; most blacks desire to live in integrated neighborhoods, although white
and black perceptions of the optimal racial mix vary considerably (Farley et al
1979). The attitudes of whites toward integration have become more liberal,
which should have led to a decline in the level of black-white segregation
(Pettigrew 1973; Taylor et al 1978). However, the housing market is a product
of structural factors that impede integration. While there is little evidence for
the "white flight" hypothesis that integration causes whites to leave their
neighborhoods, whites stop moving into newly integrated areas almost com-
pletely (Molotch 1969a; Guest & Zuiches 1969; Frey 1979). Not surprisingly,
this soon creates all-black neighborhoods. For many years the institutional
environment of lending agencies, federal agencies, and real estate brokers
worked to maintain segregation. Even with a change in government policy, the
reward structure of the real estate market encourages the steering of whites
away from integrated neighborhoods (Lake 1981:Ch. 9).
Under some circumstances, a ghetto or segregated neighborhood could
function as a refuge from societal discrimination, assuming that the ethnic
economy is large enough to absorb potential workers (Semyonov & Tyree
1981; Winsberg 1979). Generally, however, segregation means less access to
opportunities in the broader society: poorer housing and neighborhoods, in-
ferior schools, and greater distance to jobs (Hawley 1944; Roof 1979b).
Residential segregation is a major hindrance to progress in other aspects of
ethnic assimilation (Duncan & Lieberson 1959; Lieberson 1961b; Marston &
408 HIRSCHMAN
Van Valey 1979). Presumably people who inhabit the same geographical area
will interact and eventually participate together in secondary and primary
groups. In transitional neighborhoods, these patterns may not occur spon-
taneously (Molotch 1969b), but social integration is likely to follow physical
integration in the long run.
The educational system has also been the subject of integration studies. Most
of this literature has focused upon racial rather than ethnic divisions. Several
studies report that integrated schools have positive effects on the educational
and occupational attainment of black youth and no adverse effect on whites
(Crain 1970; Wilson 1979). Other studies report mixed effects upon aspira-
tions, attitudes, and subsequent attainments (Hunt 1977; Braddock 1980;
Rosenfield et al 1981). Integration may have both short- and long-term effects
that are difficult to sort out in the conventional cross-sectional survey. The
context in which integration is achieved may also affect the nature of its effects.
Historically, -most black and white students have attended racially isolated
schools. Significant change came in the late 1960s when federal courts and the
federal government began to require desegregation of school systems that had a
history of de jure segregation. Major strides were made toward integration
during this period, largely in Southern school districts (Farley & Taeuber 1973;
Farley 1975a; Wurdock & Farley 1979). There is conflicting evidence on
whether school systems that experience desegregation are more likely to lose
white enrollment than those without desegregation (Giles 1978; Wurdock
1979; Farley et al 1980).
The links between residential and school segregation are complex. While
residential segregation provides a major constraint on efforts to integrate
schools, it is clear that the historical segregation of schools has been an
important cause of residential segregation (Farley 1975b; Wilson & Taeuber
1978; Taeuber 1979). Much of the research on the impact of desegregation
policy on "white flight" from schools and cities has ignored the broader
dynamics of residential mobility and the decline in the numbers of the school-
age white population, which are independent of changes in school desegrega-
tion. Several studies have brought a wider demographic perspective to bear on
this vital public policy question (Farley 1976; Sly & Pol 1978; Taeuber et al
1981) and point the way for future research.
We know little about the level of segregation in other social institutions,
including places of work (Becker 1980), and even less about the consequences
for inter-ethnic relations. Such research must rely upon nonconventional data
sources. Yet their importance cannot be overestimated.
Intermarriage
More than any other indicator, intermarriage represents the final outcome of
assimilation. If the melting pot symbol suggests a mixture of the varied ethnic,
religious, and racial groups in the United States, the children of unions across
these boundaries should be the ultimate product of this vision of American
society. Yet because of the very intimacy of family relationships, it is likely
that amalgamation will be the final step after residential integration, socioeco-
nomic parity, and inter-ethnic tolerance have been achieved.
One of the most widely cited studies in social science has been Ruby Jo
Reeves Kennedy's analysis of intermarriage in New Haven (Kennedy 1944,
1952). On the basis of her interpretation and evocative phrase, "the triple
melting pot," most of the academic community accepted her thesis that ethnic
divisions within the three major religious groups were not barriers to intermar-
riage. This interpretation also reached the general public through Herberg's
well known book, Protestant, Catholic, Jew (1960). Yet a careful reanalysis of
Kennedy's data has raised important questions about the validity of the conclu-
sions (Peach 1980a). It seems that a common intermarrying population of
Catholics is not evident in the data. Catholics from Northwestern Europe were
more likely to intermarry with Protestants from the same national origins, and
Catholics from Eastern and Southern Europe were much less likely to intermar-
ry with this group. In further reanalysis of the New Haven data, Peach (1980b)
argues that residential segregation is the primary explanation for patterns of
marital homogamy.
Studies of intermarriage are plagued with a variety of methodological prob-
lems. Standard census and survey data sources generally report only the
prevalence of intermarriage among the currently married population. If inter-
marriages are more likely to be disrupted (by separation or divorce), then
cross-sectional data will underestimate the extent of intermarriage (and give a
biased measure of the trend). Data based upon marriage certificates (vital
statistics) are usually limited to the few states or areas that record and compile
such basic statistics (usually with little other information on the characteristics
of brides and grooms). Similarly, both sources of data are likely to contain
interviewer bias that assumes marriage partners are of similar racial/ethnic
origins [see Heer (1974) for a review of these issues]. Another central methodo-
ligical issue when comparing rates of intermarriage between populations or
across time is the standardization of the relative availability of potential
spouses. For instance, by chance alone, one would expect a higher degree of
intermarriage for Catholics than Protestants because of the smaller pool of
Catholics (potential mates). This problem, while obvious when stated, has
proven to be a major obstacle to studies of intermarriage.
There appears to have been a significant trend toward intermarriage across
religious boundaries in recent decades (Locke et al 1957; Yinger 1968; Bum-
pass 1970; Korbin & Goldscheider 1978). Perhaps most dramatic has been the
trend towards interfaith marriage among Catholics (Alba 1976; Alba & Kessler
1979). Evidence on the trend of intermarriage among Jewish Americans is less
410 HIRSCHMAN
clear-cut, but it is substantial enough to spark concern among ethnic spokesmen
(Himmelfarb 1979; Sklare 1971:Ch. 6). Studies of intermarriage among Asian
Americans (Parkman & Sawyer 1967; Tinker 1973; Kikumura & Kitano 1973;
Montero 1980) and Hispanics (Mittelbach & Moore 1968; Murguia & Frisbie
1977; Schoen et al 1978; Fitzpatrick & Gurak 1979; Gurak & Fitzpatrick 1982)
also show secular or generational increases in the extent of marriage across
ethnic boundaries [also see the broad census-based studies of Gurak & Kritz
(1978); Carter & Glick (1970):Ch. 5]. Levels of intra-ethnic marriage are still
much higher than would be expected by chance, but in general there is a strong
trend toward intermarriage [an exception is the Puerto Rican community in
New York-see Gurak & Fitzpatrick (1982)]. The impact of this trend on the
maintenance of ethnic boundaries and identity remains to be seen.
As in so many other areas, the patterns of black-white intermarriage differ
from those between other ethnic and racial minorities. The few studies based
upon marriage registration data (Heer 1966) or upon census data (Carter &
Glick 1970; Heer 1974; Gurak & Kritz 1978) show very low levels of black-
white intermarriage. For instance, according to 1970 census data about 1.2% of
currently married black men (with spouse present) had a white wife and the
corresponding figure for black married women was 0.7% (Heer 1974). For
men, but not for women, these data reveal an upward trend from 1960, but the
trend is much smaller than that for any other ethnic minority. Estimates of
black-white intermarriage are probably biased because a substantial number of
persons of partial African heritage are assumed to be white. This potential bias
may be lessened by the fact that if the race of one spouse is not reported on the
census schedule it is assumed to be the same as that of the other spouse (see
Heer 1974:248).
Attitudes
The study of race and ethnic prejudice is one of the central areas of research
within sociology and psychology. The classic texts on race and ethnicity in
sociology have focused primary attention on the nature and immediate determi-
nants of prejudice (Williams 1964; Simpson & Yinger 1972). Most of the
research on racial and ethnic attitudes arises out of social psychological
framework that focuses upon personality correlates of prejudice and the
situational environments that support or discourage racist beliefs and behavior.
The link between attitudes (prejudice) and behavior (discrimination) is com-
plex and depends on the context and many other variables [see Merton (1949)
for a classic statement].
A significant problem in the study of prejudice is the multidimensional
character of beliefs about racial and ethnic minorities. Although a common
research strategy is to construct a composite scale of intolerance based upon a
variety of beliefs and predispositions, there are likely to be important differ-
ences in the behavioral correlates and determinants of generalized stereotypes
and more specific orientations toward minorities.
There appears to have been a dramatic reduction in all dimensions of racial
intolerance over the past few decades (Campbell 1971:Ch. 7; Greeley &
Sheatsley 1971; Taylor et al 1978; Condran 1979; Smith 1982), although Tuch
(1981) found little change during the 1970s. This trend spans a number of
issues from beliefs about racial inferiority to a willingness to accept integration
in housing and other institutions. This acceptance of "liberal" race attitudes is
evident among the white respondents in the 1980 NORC General Social Survey
(percentages are of those giving a response): 77% would not object at all if a
member of the family brought a black friend home for dinner; 89% think white
and Negro students should go to the same schools (Davis 1980:95, 98).
However, such general sentiments should not be accepted at face value.
Respondents are likely to qualify their acceptance of integration if it implies
some governmental intervention or if the integration is beyond a token level.
Farley and his colleagues (1978, 1979) found that whites in Detroit were
willing to accept a few blacks in the neighborhood, but a majority of whites
would not like to live in a neighborhood that was more than one third black.
The sources of white attitudes toward minorities is a topic of much theoretic-
al and public debate. The variables with the most consistent association with
race attitudes are age and education, with the young and most highly educated
being the most tolerant (Campbell 1971). Middleton (1976) finds those living
in the South to be more prejudiced against blacks, but only slight regional
differences exist in anti-Semitism and in prejudice towards Catholics and
immigrants. The social mechanisms that create and sustain prejudice are less
clear. Education is generally considered to be a liberalizing force, and its
impact is often interpreted as part of broader social class differences in pre-
judice. This is in contrast, however, with the historic base of anti-Semitism
among the better-educated middle class (Williams 1964:53-56). Hamilton
(1972:Ch. 11) questions the hypothesis of greater working-class intolerance on
both theoretical and empirical grounds. There is, however, evidence that white
workers who are in greater competition with blacks for employment are more
likely to be intolerant (Cummings 1980). Social class differences in patterns of
response to interviewer questioning may confound research on this relationship
(Jackman 1973).
Government efforts to eliminate the effects of past discrimination have met
with mixed response from the majority population. In general, most whites
appear to be unsympathetic with affirmative action programs to increase
minority opportunities. This reluctance to support government intervention is
linked to the tendency among most Americans to interpret personal success or
failure as due to individual causes (Kluegel & Smith 1982). However, it seems
that government policies have often had a liberalizing effect on the attitudes of
412 HIRSCHMAN
whites (Jacobson 1978). Even after hostile attitudes and strong prejudice are
reduced, stereotypes of ethnic and racial groups are likely to persist (McCauley
& Stitt 1980, Lieberson 1982) and to have important consequences for social
interaction even if socioeconomic equality and integration are achieved.
BEYOND ASSIMILATION THEORY
Most of the empirical studies reviewed in the preceding section do not draw
formally upon assimilation theory, especially the expectation of the melting
pot, for their justification (the melting pot image is typically only used as a
straw man). Yet there is a clear link between the original ideas of Park and
much of the contemporary research on ethnic stratification, segregation, inter-
marriage, and prejudice. There is almost always an implicit, if not always
precisely stated, hypothesis that trends will show a moderation of differences
between ethnic populations. In the analysis of relationships between variables,
elements of "modernity"-higher education, large cities, young age, social
mobility, more information-are expected to be associated with a lessening of
ethnic divisions and frictions. Even though many of the empirical studies have
yielded negative evidence, this has not led to a different theoretical orientation.
In fact, the frequent findings that racism remains strong and that cultural
preferences are still associated with ethnicity lead to the conclusion that more
time or other structural changes are needed before "assimilation" will be
achieved.
An alternative interpretation of the development of the field would be that the
dependent variable-inter-ethnic differences-has remained the same, but that
the general theory of social change has been superceded by a broad range of
specific hypotheses tied to sets of causal (independent) variables. Consider, for
example, the following questions from the field of ethnic stratification:
Does the percent minority in a city, or other characteristics of the city,
explain variation in ethnic socioeconomic inequality (Blalock 1957; Frisbie &
Neidert 1977; Stolzenberg & D'Amico 1977; Parcel 1979)?
What is the effect of inter-regional migration on income attainment among
black men and on the black-white income gap in the North (Long & Heltman
1975; Lieberson 1978; Hogan & Pazul 1982)?
Do cultural differences in ambition or work orientations explain ethnic
differences in socioeconomic attainment (Rosen 1959; Featherman 1971;
Stryker 1981)?
A reasonable case could be made that these streams of research and many
others are focused on hypotheses far removed from the general and unspecific
theoretical framework of the assimilation perspective (indeed, I have so argued
myself upon occasion). Yet, none of the more concrete research directions
comprise a theory of change, nor does any of them challenge the general
assumptions and expectations of the assimilation framework (except to say that
it is too general to guide empirical research). Other streams of research,
however, do challenge the conventional assimilation paradigm or its basic
premises.
Recall that the central elements of Park's original thesis were that inequality/
conflict arose naturally after contact-from ethnocentrism and differential
power-and that "leveling influences" in modem society gradually led to
accommodation and assimilation. Both of these premises ignore (or at least
minimize) the role of "interests" in the creation and maintenance of racial/
ethnic divisions. What motivates prejudice and discrimination, and why are
they institutionalized (with sanctions) in social organization? These issues are
addressed in a group of ideas and hypotheses that might be called "class
approaches to ethnicity and race" (Bonacich 1980). The central theme of these
diverse alternatives is that the social processes that divide people by social class
are closely intertwined with the causal mechanisms that create and sustain
ethnic divisions. Essentially, class theories provide an interpretation for the
maintenance of ethnicity (both as a subjective identity and in objective differ-
ences) based on reasons other than initial differences and cultural persistance.
These accounts range from the general description of important class differ-
ences (Geer 1974) to complex theoretical formulations [see Bonacich (1980)
for a survey].
As noted earlier, E. Franklin Frazier (1957), a leading student of Park,
believed the expansion of European colonialism to be the cause of modern
racial inequality. Cox (1948) went further in this interpretation to posit that the
development of capitalism in Europe led to the ideology of racism that was used
to justify the labor exploitation of nonwhites throughout the world [see Miles
(1980) for a critique of Cox's theory]. Other authors have presented compelling
interpretations of the impact of social structure, including industrial employ-
ment and class position, on the development of ethnicity in the United States
(Yancey et al 1976, Steinberg 1981). This is in contrast to interpretations that
emphasize the effects of the cultural traditions immigrants bring with them
(Schooler 1976).
Once ethnic divisions are created, what structural forces tend to reinforce
them? The classic Marxist framework suggests that race and ethnicity are used
by employers and other elites to divide the working class (Reich 1981; also see
Tabb 1970). According to this interpretation the division created between
minorities and the majority population should weaken the relative position of
the majority (white) working class in the larger society [Szymanski (1976); for
counter evidence see Villemez (1978); Beck (1980); also see Glenn (1963,
1966)].
A quite different class theory is offered by Bonacich (1972, 1979) in her split
labor market theory. She locates the key dynamic of ethnic antagonism in the
414 HIRSCHMAN
struggle between the established working class and the class of new entrants,
defined by race or ethnicity, who are put into competition for the same jobs.
Employers try to use the new workers, immigrants or disadvantaged minorities,
to lower the price of labor. The established working class sees the new workers
as a threat to their hard-earned gains in the class struggle and attempts to
exclude them through expulsion, immigration bars, and strict caste barriers in
employment. Racism is the ideological fuel used to fire the social movement.
Bonacich has demonstrated the utility of her theory in historical studies of
black-white relations in the United States (1975, 1976) and for the case of
South Africa (1981a; also see Burawoy 1981; Bonacich 1981b).
A theoretically troublesome element in studies of race and ethnicity has been
the case of successful minorities, such as Jews and Asians in the United States.
Despite prejudice and hostility from the larger society, these "middleman
minorities" display both above-average economic success and an unusual
degree of ethnic solidarity. Since economic success is supposed to bring
assimilation according to the conventional theory, these groups are anomalous.
Bonacich (1973) presents a class-based interpretation of middleman minorities
that emphasizes the use of kinship ties to build an ethnic economy that both
serves the ethnic minority and competes effectively with firms in the general
economy. Hostility from the majority population can strengthen ethnic solidar-
ity, which allows the mobilization at low wages of workers with high motiva-
tion (Light 1972). However, once societal prejudice diminishes and good
opportunities become available in the general economy, ethnic solidarity and
the entrepreneurial economy tend to fade (Bonacich & Modell 1980). Wilson &
Portes (1980; also see Portes 1981) extend these ideas in their interpretation of
the immigrant enclave of Cubans in Miami [for a general statement, see
Hechter (1978)].
One of the commonest features of modem societies is the regional concentra-
tion of ethnic populations, accompanied by highly unequal regional rates of
economic growth. While the assumption is that interregional migration and the
"spread effects" of industrialization will reduce such differences, the experi-
ences of the Celtic fringe in Great Britian and of Quebec in Canada raise
another interpretation. Following the logic of Hechter (1975), the uneven
spatial growth of modem capitalism tends to reinforce national ethnic divisions
in both economic and political dimensions. This framework has also been
applied to the United States in various analyses of internal colonialism (Ges-
chwender 1978:Ch. 4; Blauner 1972).
Many of the ideas from these class perspectives specify conditions under
which ethnic divisions and sentiments are likely to be reinforced through the
organization and structure of society. As such, they represent hypotheses that
can be joined with the body of ideas, methods, and data sources used in the
general assimilation framework. A major obstacle to this type of interpretation
has been the use in the past of different analytical strategies. This seems to be
less of a problem at present (e.g. Wright 1978).
CONCLUSIONS
Reading the pace of social change from newspaper headlines or even from the
number of citations by sociologists may be misleading. The public and
academic focus on ethnicity and race in the last two decades might suggest that
ethnic divisions and ethnic identity are more salient than ever. Yet evidence
that ethnicity remains an important point of differentiation does not imply that
its influence is greater than it once was. We must separate, both conceptually
and empirically, the cultural and structural dimensions of ethnicity. Tendencies
to mistake parts for the whole and to lump short- and long-term trends together
have caused much confusion.
Gans (1979) and Alba (1981) have sharply questioned the depth of the
resurgence of ethnicity among white ethnics in the last decade. As Alba put it,
"During the 1970s, ethnicity could be celebrated precisely because assimilation
had proceeded far enough that ethnicity seemed so threatening and divisive"
(1981:96). If ethnicity is no longer a barrier to participation in secondary or
primary groups and in institutions, it does not have to be hidden in the closet.
Even if ethnicity has a lessening impact on socioeconomic roles, it does not
necessarily mean that its cultural and political roles, which are often tied to
religious institutions and rooted in certain geographic areas, will diminish at the
same pace. In fact, it is possible that certain aspects of ethnic culture, such as
cuisine, will spread to the general population. In such cases, it is necessary to
state clearly what is meant by the resurgence of ethnicity.
In his provocative, but very insightful, reanalysis of the role of ethnicity in
American society, Steinberg (1981:253-62) questions the logic of the advo-
cates of ethnic pluralism who reject the goal of assimilation in American
society. The problem, as Steinberg sees it, is how to achieve full social and
economic equality for ethnic groups who seek to maintain exclusive social and
cultural organizations. Ethnic spokesmen have always resisted the melting pot
image as a threat to the cultural survival of the ethnic community and have
proclaimed the virtues of ethnic pluralism. Yet most members of the disadvan-
taged minorities see the melting pot (or the American dream) as a promise of
their right to get ahead, both economically and socially. Ethnic culture does not
disappear- during the process of mobility, yet is often seen as an obstacle,
especially if elites are prejudiced. Steinberg sees much of the current emphasis
on ethnic pluralism as an effort of the fairly established populations to resist
integration and participation with the currently disadvantaged minorities, much
in the way that the WASP establishment rejected the melting pot goals of new
immigrants earlier in the century.
416 HIRSCHMAN
According to this interpretation of the bases for the resurgence of ethnicity
and the general conclusions of the empirical studies reviewed earlier, I con-
clude that the character of ethnicity has shifted over the last fifty years. It was
once a primary axis of socioeconomic stratification and institutional segrega-
tion; it is now a symbol of cultural and political differentiation. However, for
some minorities, especially blacks and Puerto Ricans, most of the barriers to
achievement are still in place. Briefly, the evidence in support of this thesis is as
follows:
1. There are relatively modest socioeconomic differentials among various
white ethnic populations and little evidence of direct economic discrimination.
In spite of significant differences, the trend among Asian Americans and
Hispanics is toward socioeconomic parity with the majority population. There
is some improvement in the relative position of blacks, but the gap remains
wide.
2. White ethnic residential integration has been declining for most of the
century. Although still high, Hispanic (except Puerto Rican) residential seg-
regation is also declining and seems to be partially a function of socioeconomic
position. Black-white segregation is extraordinarily high throughout the coun-
try and is not explained by social class differences.
3. Segregation in housing is closely intertwined with segregation in other
institutions, particularly schools. Significant gains in the integration of black
and white school children were made in the last decade, but future progress is
much in doubt.
4. Recent studies consistently point to an upturn in religious and ethnic
intermarriage, particularly for Catholics. This trend is also evident for Hispa-
nics (except Puerto Ricans) and Asians. Black-white intermarriage remains at
very low levels.
5. Attitudes toward racial minorities have become much more liberal in the
post World War II era. Most of this is expressed in support of equal opportunity
and support for integrated institutions.
All of this is not to suggest that the United States has become an ethnically
blind society. The number of Catholics, Jews, and blacks on the Supreme Court
and in the Cabinet continues to be a newsworthy topic. There are undoubtedly
many sectors of the society, including neighborhoods, clubs, and even some
firms, where one's presumed ethnic pedigree remains an important criterion for
admission. Yet the wide-ranging studies reviewed here suggest a declining role
for ethnicity in American society. The process seems generally to be progres-
sive, each step toward ethnic integration or intermarriage narrowing the future
range for differentiation on the basis of ethnicity. For black Americans, the
evidence is far less conclusive. The declines in prejudice and modest socioeco-
nomic gains contrast with lack of any change in residential integration. Perhaps
the 1980 Census will reveal that change in this dimension occurred during the
1970s. In conclusion, however, Americans of African descent have been and
continue to be subjected to constraints quite different from those upon other
ethnic minorities.
Future research on race and ethnicity should not simply test the hypothesis of
assimilation, though continual "social indicators" reporting of change is neces-
sary. Instead it must begin to specify and measure the impact of causal forces
and intervening mechanisms on the various dimensions of ethnic change (and
the pace of ethnic change) in different contexts. The forces of change in
industrial society identified by Park and other sociologists in the assimilation
school are clearly important, especially over the long run. Yet there are other
causal factors, some of which are suggested by studies emphasizing class
interests. While prejudice and ethnic antagonism can persist through sheer
cultural inertia, certain interests are served through the maintenance of ethnic
divisions. The major task is to identify the contexts (political, regional, indust-
rial) in which these forces of resistance can retard or even negate the integrative
mechanisms of complex societies-i.e. to advance beyond the debate over
whether ethnicity matters, to learn how and why ethnicity matters.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am greatly indebted to Donna Fish for her excellent research assistance and to
Robin Williams, Lawrence Fuchs, an anonymous reviewer, and members of
the editorial board for their insightful comments. I wish that I could have
written the paper that would have included all of their suggestions. A research
grant from NICHD ("Asian Americans: Immigration and Adaptation" HD
16309) provided partial support for the preparation of this review.
Literature Cited
Abramson, H. J. 1980. Assimilation and plur-
alism. In Harvard Encyclopedia of Ethnic
Groups, ed. S. Thernstrom, pp. 150-60.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. 1076
PP.
Alba, R. D. 1976. Social assimilation among
American Catholic national-origin groups.
Am. Sociol. Rev. 41:1030-46
Alba, R. D. 1981. The twilight of ethnicity
among American Catholics of European
ancestry. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci.
454:86-97
Alba, R. D., Kesseler, R. G. 1979. Patterns of
interethnic marriage among Catholic Amer-
icans. Soc. Forces 57:124-40
Auerbach, J. S. 1976. Unequal Justice:
Lawyers and Social Change in Modern
America. NY: Oxford. 395 pp.
Baltzell, E. D. 1964. The Protestant Establish-
ment: Aristocracy & Caste in America. NY:
Vintage Books. 429 pp.
Barth, E. A. T., Noel, D. L. 1972. Conceptual
framework for the analysis of race relations:
an evaluation. Soc. Forces 50:333-48
Beck, E. M. 1980. Discrimination and white
economic loss: a time series examination of
the radical model. Soc. Forces 59:148-
68
Becker, H. J. 1980. Racial segregation among
places of employment. Soc. Forces 58:761-
76
Blalock, H. 1957. Percent non-white and dis-
crimination in the South. Am. Sociol. Rev.
22:677-82
Blauner, R. B. 1972. Racial Oppression in
America. NY: Harper & Row. 309 pp.
Blumer, H. 1965. Industrialization and race
relations. In Industrialization and Race Re-
lations: A Symposium, ed. G. Hunter, pp.
220-53. London: Oxford Univ. Press. 285
PP.
Bonacich, E. 1972. A theory of ethnic antagon-
418 HIRSCHMAN
ism: the split labor market. Am. Sociol. Rev.
37:547-59
Bonacich, E. 1973. A theory of middleman
minorities. Am. Sociol. Rev. 38:503-94
Bonacich, E. 1975. Abolition, the extension of
slavery and the position of free blacks: a
study of split labor markets in the United
States, 1830-1863. Am. J. Sociol. 81:601-
28
Bonacich, E. 1976. Advanced capitalism and
black/white race relations in the United
States: a split labor market interpretation.
Bonacich, E. 1979. The past, present and fu-
ture of split labor market theory. In Research
in Race and Ethnic Relations, ed. C. B.
Marrett, C. Leggon, pp. 17-64. Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press. 199 pp.
Bonacich, E. 1980. Class approaches to ethnic-
ity and race. Insurg. Sociol. 10:9-23
Bonacich, E. 198 la. Capitalism and race rela-
tions in South Africa: a split labor market
analysis. In Political Power and Social
Theory, ed. M. Zeitlin, pp. 239-77. Green-
wich, CT: JAI Press. 343 pp.
Bonacich, E. 1981b. Reply to Burawoy. In
Political Power and Social Theory, ed. M.
Zeitlin, pp. 337-43. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press. 343 pp.
Bonacich, E., Modell, J. 1980. The Economic
Basis of Ethnic Solidarity: Small Business in
the Japanese American Community. Ber-
keley, CA: Univ. Calif. Press. 290 pp.
Braddock, J. H. 1980. The perpetuation of seg-
regation across levels of education: a be-
havioral assessment of the contact hypoth-
esis. Sociol. Educ. 53:178-86
Bumpass, L. 1970. The trend of interfaith mar-
riage in the United States. Soc. Biol. 17:254-
59
Burawoy, M. 1981. The capitalist state in
South Africa: marxist and sociological pers-
pectives on race and class. In Political Power
and Social Theory, ed. M. Zeitlin, pp.
279-335. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
343 pp.
Campbell, A. 1971. White Attitudes Toward
Black People. Ann Arbor: Inst. Soc. Res.,
Univ. Mich. 177 pp.
Carter, H., Glick P. C. 1970. Marriage and
Divorce: A Social and Economic Study.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. 451
PP.
Chiswick, B. 1977. Sons of immigrants: are
they at an earnings disadvantage? Am. Econ.
Rev.: Pap. Proc. 67:376-80
Chiswick, B. 1978. The effect of Americaniza-
tion on the earnings of foreign born men. J.
Pol. Econ. 86:897-921
Chiswick, B. 1979. The economic progress of
immigrants: some apparently universal pat-
terns. In Contemporary Economic Prob-
lems, ed. W. Fellner, pp. 357-99. Washing-
ton DC: Am. Enter. Inst. 436 pp.
Chiswick, B. 1980. Immigrant earnings pat-
terns by sex, race, and ethnic groupings.
Monthly Labor Rev. 103:22-25
Condran, J. L. 1979. Changes in white atti-
tudes toward blacks: 1963-1977. Publ.
Opin. Q. 43:463-76
Cox, 0. C. 1948. Caste, Class, andRace. NY:
Doubleday. 624 pp.
Crain, R. L. 1970. School integration and
occupational achievement of Negroes. Am.
J. Sociol. 75:593-606
Cummings, S. 1980. White ethnics, racial pre-
judice, and labor market segmentation. Am.
J. Sociol. 85:938-50
Daniels, R. 1977. The Politics of Prejudice.
NY: Atheneum. 165 pp.
Davis, J. A. 1980. General Social Surveys,
1972-1980: Cumulative Codebook. Chica-
go: Natl. Opin. Res. Centr. 362 pp.
Duncan, B. 1965. Family Factors and School
Dropout: 1920-1960. CRP No. 2258. Ann
Arbor: Univ. Mich. 229 pp.
Duncan, B., Duncan, 0. D. 1968. Minorities
and the process of stratification. Am. Sociol.
Rev. 33:356-64
Duncan, 0. D. 1967. Discrimination against
Negroes. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci.
371:85-103
Duncan, 0. D. 1968. Patterns of occupational
mobility among Negro men. Demography
5:11-22
Duncan, 0. D. 1969. Inheritance of poverty or
inheritance of race. In On Understanding
Poverty, ed. D. P. Moynihan, pp. 85-1 10.
NY: Basic. 425 pp.
Duncan, 0. D., Lieberson, S. 1959. Ethnic
segregation and assimilation. Am. J. Sociol.
64:364-74
Faris, R. E. L. 1967. Chicago Sociology:
1920-1932. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.
173 pp.
Farley, R. 1975a. Racial integration in the pub-
lic schools, 1967 to 1972: assessing the
effect of governmental policies. Sociol.
Focus 8:3-26
Farley, R. 1975b. Residential segregation and
its implications for school integration. Law
Contemp. Prob. 39:104-93
Farley, R. 1976. Is Coleman right? Soc. Policy
6:1-10
Farley, R. 1977a. Trends in racial inequalities:
have the gains of the 1960s disappeared in
the 1970s? Am. Sociol. Rev. 42: 189-208
Farley, R. 1977b. Residential segregation in
urbanized areas of United States in 1970:
analysis of social class and racial differ-
ences. Demography 14:497-518
Farley, R., Taeuber, A. F. 1973. Racial seg-
regation in the public schools. Am. J. Sociol.
79:888-905
Farley, R., Schuman, H., Bianchi, S., Col-
asanto, D., Hatchett, S. 1978. "Chocolate
city, vanilla suburbs:" will the trend toward
racially separate communities continue?
Soc. Sci. Res. 7:319-44
Farley, R., Bianchi, S., Colasanto, D. 1979.
Barriers to the social integration of neighbor-
hoods: the Detroit case. Ann. Am. Acad.
Polit. Soc. Sci. 441:97-113
Farley, R., Richards, T., Wurdock, C. 1980.
School desegregation and white flight: an
investigation of competing models and their
discrepant findings. Sociol. Educ. 53:123-
39
Featherman, D. 1971. The socioeconomic
achievement of white religio-ethnic sub-
groups: social and psychological explana-
tions. Am. Sociol. Rev. 36:207-22
Featherman, D. L., Hauser, R. M. 1976.
Changes in the socioeconomic stratification
of the races, 1962-73. Am. J. Sociol.
82:621-51
Featherman, D. L., Hauser, R. M. 1978.
Opportunity and Change. NY: Academic.
572 pp.
Fitzpatrick, J. P., Gurak, D. T. 1979. Hispanic
Intermarriage in New York City: 1975. NY:
Hispanic Res. Cent., Fordham Univ.,
Monogr. No. 2. 100 pp.
Frazier, E. F. 1957. Race and Culture Contacts
in the Modern World. Boston: Beacon Press.
338 pp.
Frey, W. H. 1979. Central city white flight:
racial and nonracial causes. Am. Sociol. Rev.
44:425-48
Frisbie, W. P., Neidert, L. 1977. Inequality
and the relative size of minority populations:
a comparative analysis. Am. J. Sociol.
82:1007-30
Gans, H. 1979. Symbolic ethnicity: the future
of ethnic groups and culture in America.
Ethnic and Racial Stud. 2:1-20
Geer, C., ed. 1974. Divided Society: The
Ethnic Experience in America. NY: Basic
Books. 405 pp.
Geschwender, J. A. 1977. Class, Race and
Worker Insurgency: The League of Revolu-
tionary Workers. NY: Cambridge Univ.
Press. 250 pp.
Geschwender, J. A. 1978. Racial Stratification
in America. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown
Co. 282 pp.
Giles, M. W. 1979. White enrollment stability
and school desegregation: a two level analy-
sis. Am. Sociol. Rev. 43:848-64
Glazer, N., Moynihan D. P. 1970. Beyond the
Melting Pot. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
363 pp. 2nd ed.
Gleason, P. 1979. Confusion compounded-
melting pot in the 1960s and 1970s. Ethnicity
6:10-20
Glenn, N. D. 1963. Occupational benefits to
whites from subordination of Negroes. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 28:443-48
Glenn, N. D. 1966. White gains from Negro
subordination. Soc. Probl. 14:159-78
Goldstein, S. 1969. Socioeconomic differen-
tials among religious groups in the United
States. Am. J. Sociol. 74:612-31
Gordon, M. M. 1964. Assimilation in Amer-
ican Life. NY: Oxford Univ. Press. 276 pp.
Gordon, M. M. 1975. Toward a general theory
of racial and ethnic group relations. In
Ethnicity: Theory and Experience, ed. N.
Glazer, D. P. Moynihan, pp. 84-110. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. 531 pp.
Greeley, A. M. 1974. Ethnicity in the United
States: A Preliminary Reconnaissance. NY:
Wiley. 347 pp.
Greeley, A. M. 1978. Ethnicity, Denomina-
tion, and Inequality. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage. 85 pp.
Greeley, A. M., Sheatsley, P. B. 1971. Atti-
tudes toward racial integration. Sci. Am.
225:13-19
Guest, A. M., Weed, J. 1976. Ethnic residen-
tial segregation: patterns of change. Am. J.
Sociol. 81:1088-111
Guest, A. M., Zuiches, J. J. 1969. Another
look at residential turnover in urban neigh-
borhoods: a note on "racial change in a stable
community" by Harvey Molotch. Am. J.
Sociol. 77:457-67
Gurak, D. T., Fitzpatrick, J. P. 1982. Intermar-
riage among Hispanic ethnic groups in New
York City. Am. J. Sociol. 87:921-34
Gurak, D. T., Kritz, M. M. 1978. Intermar-
riage patterns in United States: maximizing
information from United States census pub-
lic use samples. Rev. Pub. Dat. 6:33-43
Hamilton, R. 1972. Class and Politics in the
United States. NY: Wiley. 589 pp.
Handlin, 0. 1951. The Uprooted: The Epic
Story of the Great Migrations that Made the
American People. NY: Grosset & Dunlap.
310 pp.
Hauser, R. M., Featherman, D. L. 1976.
Equality of schooling: trends and prospects.
Sociol. Educ. 49:99-120
Hawley, A. 1944. Dispersion versus segrega-
tion: apropos of a solution of race problems.
Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci. Arts Lett. 30:667-74
Hechter, M. 1975. Internal Colonialism-The
Celtic Fringe in British National Develop-
ment, 1536-1966. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press. 361 pp.
Hechter, M. 1978. Group formation and the
cultural division of labor. Am. J. Sociol.
84:293-319
Heer, D. M. 1966. Negro-white marriage in the
United States. J. Mar. Fam. 80:262-73
Heer, D. M. 1974. The prevalence of black-
white marriage in the United States, 1960
and 1970. J. Mar. Fam. 36:246-58
420 HIRSCHMAN
Heer, D. M. 1980. Intermarriage. In Harvard
Encyclopedia of Ethnic Groups, ed. S.
Thernstrom, pp. 513-21. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Univ. Press. 1076 pp.
Herberg, W. 1960. Protestant-Catholic-
Jew. Garden City, NY: Anchor. 309 pp. rev.
ed.
Herschberg, T., Burstein, A. N., Eriksen, E.
P., Greenberg, S., Yancey, W. L. 1979. A
tale of three cities: blacks and immigrants in
Philadelphia: 1850-1880, 1930 and 1970.
Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 441:55-81
Himmelfarb, H. S. 1979. Patterns of assimila-
tion: identification among American Jews.
Ethnicity 6:249-67
Hirschman, C., Wong, M. G. 1981. Trends in
socioeconomic achievement among immig-
rant and native-born Asian Americans,
1960-1976. Sociol. Q. 22:495-513
Hirschman, C., Wong, M. G. 1982. Socioeco-
nomic gains of Asian-Americans, Blacks,
and Hispanics: 1960-1976. Presented at
Ann. Meet. Am. Sociol. Assn., San Francis-
co, Sept. 6-10
Hogan, D., Pazul, M. 1982. The occupational
and earnings returns to education among
black men in the North. Am. J. Sociol.
87:905-20
Hunt, J. G. 1977. Assimilation or marginality:
some school integration effects reconsi-
dered. Soc. Forces 56:604-10
Hurh, W., Kim, H., Kim, K. 1978. Assimila-
tion Patterns of Immigrants in the United
States: Case Study of Korean Immigrants in
the Chicago Area. Washington DC: Uni-
versity Press of America. 120 pp.
Hutchinson, E. P. 1956. Immigrants and Their
Children. NY: Wiley. 391 pp.
Jackman, M. 1973. Education and prejudice or
education and response-set. Am. Sociol.
Rev. 38:327-39
Jacobson, C. 1978. Desegregation rulings and
public attitude changes: white resistance
or resignation? Am. J. Sociol. 84:698-
705
Kallen, H. M. 1915. Democracy versus the
melting pot. The Nation, Feb. 18, 1915. Re-
printed in Culture and Democracy, ed. H.
M. Kallen, NY: Boni & Liveright, 1924. 347
PP.
Kantrowitz, N. 1979. Racial and ethnic re-
sidential segregation: Boston, 1830-1970.
Kantrowitz, N. 1981. Ethnic segregation: so-
cial reality and academic myth. In Ethnic
Segregation in Cities, ed. C. Peach, V.
Robinson, S. Smith, pp. 43-57. Athens,
GA: Univ. Georgia Press. 258 pp.
Kennedy, R. J. R. 1944. Single or triple melt-
ing pot? intermarriage trends in New Haven,
1870-1940. Am. J. Sociol. 49:331-39
Kennedy, R. J. R. 1952. Single or triple melt-
ing pot? intermarriage trends in New Haven
1870-1950. Am. J. Sociol. 58:56-59
Kerr, C., Dunlop, J. T., Harbison, F., Myers,
C. A. 1964. Industrialism and Industrial
Man. NY: Oxford Univ. Press. 263 pp.
Kikumura, A., Kitano, H. H. L. 1973. Inter-
racial marriage: a picture of the Japanese
Americans. J. Soc. Iss. 29:67-81
Kluegel, J. R., Smith, E. 1982. Whites' beliefs
about blacks' opportunities. Am. Sociol.
Rev. 47:518-32
Korbin, F. E., Goldscheider, C. 1978. The
Ethnic Factor in Family Structure and
Mobility. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. 257
PP.
Kuo, W. H., Lin, N. 1977. Assimilation of
Chinese-Americans in Washington, D. C.
Sociol. Q. 18:340-52
Lake, R. 1981. The New Suburbanites: Race
and Housing in the Suburbs. New Bruns-
wick, NJ: Cent. Pol. Res., Rutgers Univ.
303 pp.
Lieberson, S. 1961a. A societal theory of race
and ethnic relations. Am. Sociol. Rev.
26:902-10
Lieberson, S. 1961b. The impact of residential
segregation on ethnic assimilation. Soc.
Forces 40:52-57
Lieberson, S. 1963. Ethnic Patterns in Amer-
ican Cities. NY: Free Press. 229 pp.
Lieberson, S. 1978. A reconsideration of the
income differences found between migrants
and northern-born blacks. Am. J. Sociol. 83:
940-66
Lieberson, S. 1980. A Piece of the Pie: Blacks
and White Immigrants Since 1880. Berkeley,
CA: Univ. Calif. Press. 419 pp.
Lieberson, S. 1982. Stereotypes: their con-
sequences for race and ethnic interaction. In
Social Structure and Behavior: Essays in
Honor of William Hamilton Sewell, ed. R.
M. Hauser, D. Mechanic, A. 0. Haller, T.
S. Hauser, pp. 47-68. NY: Academic. 480
PP.
Light, I. 1972. Ethnic Enterprise in America.
Berkeley, CA: Univ. Calif. Press. 209 pp.
Locke, H. J., Sabagh, G., Thomes, M. M.
1957. Interfaith marriages. Soc. Probl.
4:329-33
Long, L. H., Heltman, L. R. 1975. Migration
and income differences between black and
white men in the north. Am. J. Sociol.
80:1391-409
Lopez, M. M. 1981. Patterns of interethnic
residential segregation in the urban south-
west, 1960 and 1970. Soc. Sci. Q. 62:50-63
Lyman, S. 1968. The race relations cycle of
Robert E. Park. Pac. Sociol. Rev. 11: 16-22
Mare, R. 1981. Trends in schooling: demogra-
phy, performance, and organization. Ann.
Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 453:96-122
Marston, W. G., Van Valey, T. L. 1979. Role
of residential segregation in the assimilation
process. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci.
441:13-35
Massey, D. S. 1979a. Residential segregation
of Spanish Americans in United States urba-
nized areas. Demography 16:553-63
Massey, D. S. 1979b. Effects of socioecono-
mic factors on the residential segregation of
blacks and Spanish-Americans in United
States urbanized areas. Am. Sociol. Rev.
44:1015-22
Massey, D. S. 1981a. Dimensions of the new
immigration to the United States and the
prospects for assimilation. Ann. Rev. Sociol.
7:57-85
Massey, D. S. 198 lb. Hispanic residential seg-
regation: a comparison of Mexicans, Cubans
and Puerto Ricans. Sociol. Soc. Res.
65:311-22
McCauley, C., Stitt, C. L. 1980. Stereotyping:
from prejudice to prediction. Psychol. Bull.
87:195-208
McWilliams, C. 1945. Prejudice-Japanese-
Americans: Symbol of Racial Intolerance.
Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co. 337 pp.
Merton, R. 1949. Discrimination and the
American creed. In Discrimination and
National Welfare, ed. R. M. MacIver, pp.
99-126. NY: Harper. 135 pp.
Metzger, L. P. 1971. American sociology and
black assimilation: conflicting perspectives.
Am. J. Sociol. 76:627-47
Middleton, R. 1976. Regional differences in
prejudice. Am. Sociol. Rev. 41:94-117
Miles, R. 1980. Class, race and ethnicity: a
critique of Cox's theory. Ethnic and Racial
Stud. 3:169-87
Mittelbach, F. G., Moore, J. W. 1968. Ethnic
endogamy-the case of Mexican Amer-
icans. Am. J. Sociol. 74:50-62
Molotch, H. 1969a. Racial change in a stable
community. Am. J. Sociol. 75:226-38
Molotch, H. 1969b. Racial integration in a
transition community. Am. Sociol. Rev.
34:878-93
Montero, D. 1980. Japanese Americans:
Changing Patterns of Ethnic Affiliation Over
Three Generations. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press. 171 pp.
Montero, D. 1981. The Japanese-Americans-
changing patterns of assimilation over three
generations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 46:829-39
Montero, D., Tsukashima, R. 1977. Assimila-
tion and educational achievement: the case of
the second generation Japanese-American.
Sociol. Q. 18:490-503
Murguia, E., Frisbie, W. P. 1977. Trends in
Mexican-American intermarriage: recent
findings in perspective. Soc. Sci. Q. 58:374-
89
Myrdal, G. [1944] 1964. An American Dilem-
ma. NY: McGraw Hill. 1330 pp.
Newman, W. M. 1973. American Pluralism: A
Study of Minority Groups and Social Theory.
NY: Harper & Row. 307 pp.
Novak, M. 1972. The Rise of the Unmeltable
Ethnics. NY: Macmillan. 321 pp.
Parcel, T. L. 1979. Race, regional labor mar-
kets and earnings. Am. Sociol. Rev. 44:262-
79
Park, R. E., 1950. Race and Culture. Glencoe,
IL: Free Press. 403 pp.
Park, R. E., Burgess, E. 1969. Introduction to
the Science of Sociology. Stud. ed. abridged
by M. Janowitz. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press. 460 pp.
Parkman, M. A., Sawyer, J. 1967. Dimensions
of ethnic intermarriage in Hawaii. Am.
Sociol. Rev. 32:593-607
Parsons, T. 1975. Some theoretical considera-
tions on the nature and trends of change of
ethnicity. In Ethnicity: Theory and Experi-
ence, ed. N. Glazer, D. P. Moynihan, pp.
53-83. Cambridge. MA: Harvard Univ.
Press. 531 pp.
Pavalko, R. M. 1980. Racism and the new
immigration: a reinterpretation of assimila-
tion of white ethnics in American society.
Sociol. Soc. Res. 65:56-77
Peach, C. 1980a. Which triple melting pot? a
re-examination of ethnic intermarriage in
New Haven, 1900-1950. Ethnic and Racial
Stud. 3:1-16
Peach, C. 1980b. Ethnic segregation and inter-
marriage. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 70:371-
81
Pettigrew, T. 1973. Attitudes on race and hous-
ing: a social-psychological view. In Seg-
regation in Residential Areas, ed. A. Haw-
ley, V. Rock, pp. 21-84. Washington DC:
Natl. Acad. Sci. 235 pp.
Portes, A. 1981. Modes of structural incorpora-
tion and present theories of labor immigra-
tion. In Global Trends in Migration: Theory
and Research on International Population
Movements, ed. M. Kritz, C. Keely, S.
Tomasi, pp. 279-97. NY: Cent. Migr. Stud.
433 pp.
Raushenbush, W. 1979. Robert E. Park:
Biography of a Sociologist. Durham, NC:
Duke Univ. Press. 206 pp.
Reich, M. 1981. Racial Inequality: A Political-
Economic Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Prince-
ton Univ. Press. 345 pp.
Roof, W. C. 1979a. Socioeconomic differen-
tials among white socioreligious groups in
the United States. Soc. Forces 58:280-89
Roof, W. C. 1979b. Race and residence: the
shifting basis of American race relations.
Rosen, B. C. 1959. Race, ethnicity, and the
achievement syndrome. Am. Sociol. Rev.
24:47-60
Rosenberg. T. J., Lake, R. W. 1976. Toward a
422 HIRSCHMAN
revised model of residential segregation and
succession: Puerto Ricans in New York. Am.
J. Sociol. 81:1142-50
Rosenfield, D., Sheehan, D. S., Marcus, M.
M., Stephen, W. G. 1981. Classroom struc-
ture and prejudice in desegregated schools.
J. Educ. Psychol. 73:17-26
Schermerhorn, R. A. 1970. Comparative
Ethnic Relations: A Framework for Theory
and Research. NY: Random House. 327 pp.
Schnare, A. B. 1980. Trends in residential seg-
regation by race: 1960-1970. J. Urb. Econ.
7:293-301
Schoen, R., Nelson, V. E., Collins, M. 1978.
Intermarriage among Spanish surnamed
Californians, 1962-1974. Int. Migr. Rev.
12:359-69
Schooler, C. 1976. Serfdom's legacy: an ethnic
continuum. Am. J. Sociol. 81:1265-86
Semyonov, M., Tyree, A. 1981. Community
segregation and the costs of ethnic sub-
ordination. Soc. Forces 59:649-66
Shibutani, T., Kwan, K. M. 1965 Ethnic Stra-
tification. NY: Macmillan. 626 pp.
Siegel, P. 1965. On the cost of being a Negro.
Sociol. Inq. 35:41-57
Simpson, G. E. 1968. Assimilation. InInterna-
tional Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences,
ed. D. L. Sills, 1:438-44. NY: Macmillan
Co. & Free Press. 522 pp. 17 Vols.
Simpson, G. E., Yinger, J. M. 1972. Racial
and Cultural Minorities: An Analysis of Pre-
judice and Discrimination. NY: Harper &
Row. 881 pp. 4th ed.
Sklare, M. 1971. America's Jews. NY: Ran-
dom House. 234 pp.
Sly, D. F., Pol, L. G. 1978. Demographic
context of school segregation and desegrega-
tion. Soc. Forces 56:1072-86
Smith, T. W. 1982. General liberalism and
social change in post World War II America:
a summary of trends. Soc. Ind. 10:1-28
Sowell, T. 1981. Ethnic America: A History.
NY: Basic Books. 353 pp.
Spain, D. 1979. Race relations and residential
segregation in New Orleans: two centuries of
paradox. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci.
441:82-96
Steinberg, S. 1974. TheAcademicMelting Pot:
Catholics and Jews in American Higher
Education. New Brunswick, NJ: Transac-
tion. 183 pp.
Steinberg, S. 1981. The Ethnic Myth: Race,
Ethnicity and Class in America. Boston:
Beacon Press. 277 pp.
Stolzenberg, R. M., D'Amico, R. J. 1977. City
differences and nondifferences in the effect
of race and sex on occupational distribution.
Stryker, R. 1981. Religio-ethnic effects on
attainments in the early career. Am. Sociol.
Rev. 46:212-31
Synnott, M. G. 1979. Admission and assimila-
tion of minority students at Harvard, Yale,
and Princeton, 1900-1970. Hist. Educ. Q.
19:285-304
Szymanski, A. 1976. Racial discrimination and
white gain. Am. Sociol. Rev. 41:403-14
Tabb, W. 1970. The Political Economy of the
Black Ghetto. NY: Norton. 152 pp.
Taeuber, K. E. 1968. The effect of income
redistribution on racial residential segrega-
tion. Urb. Aff. Q. 4:5-14
Taeuber, K. E. 1979. Housing, schools and
incremental segregative effects. Ann. Am.
Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 441:157-67
Taeuber, K. E., Taeuber, A. F. 1964. The
Negro as an immigrant group: recent trends
in racial and ethnic segregation in Chicago.
Am. J. Sociol. 69:374-82
Taeuber, K. E., Taeuber, A. F. 1965. Negroes
in Cities: Residential Segregation and
Neighborhood Change. Chicago: Aldine.
284 pp.
Taeuber, K. E., Wilson, F. D., James, D. R.,
Taeuber, A. F. 1981. A demographic pers-
pective on school desegregation in the
U.S.A. In Ethnic Segregation in Cities, ed.
C. Peach, V. Robinson, S. Smith, pp. 83-
105. Athens, GA: Univ. Georgia Press. 258
PP.
Taylor, D. G., Sheatsley, P. B., Greeley, A.
M. 1978. Attitudes toward racial integration.
Sci. Am. 238:42-49
Tienda, M., ed. 1981. Hispanic Origin Work-
ers in the U.S. Labor Market: Comparative
Analyses of Employment and Earnings. Re-
port No. DLETA-21-55-79-27-2. Final Rep.
US Depart. Labor. Available from Natl.
Techn. Inform. Service, Springfield, VA.
392 pp.
Tinken, J. N. 1973. Intermarriage and ethnic
boundaries: the Japanese American case. J.
Soc. Iss. 29:49-66
Tuch, S. A. 1981. Analyzing recent trends in
prejudice toward blacks: insights from latent
class models. Am. J. Sociol. 87:130-42
US Commission on Civil Rights. 1978. Social
Indicators of Equality for Minorities and
Women. Washington DC: US Comm. Civil
Rights. 136 pp.
van den Berghe, P. L. 1967. Race and Racism:
A Comparative Perspective. NY: Wiley. 169
PP.
van den Berghe, P. L. 1981. The Ethnic Phe-
nomenon. NY: Elsevier. 301 pp.
Van Valey, T. L., Roof, W. C., Wilcox, J. E.
1977. Trends in residential segregation:
1960-1970. Am. J. Sociol. 82:826-44
Villemez, W. J. 1978. Black subordination and
white economic well-being. Am. Sociol.
Rev. 43:772-76
Williams, R. M. 1964. Strangers Next Door:
Ethnic Relations in American Communities.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 434
PP.
Williams, R. M. 1975. Race and ethnic rela-
tions. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 1:125-64
Williams, R. M. 1980. Structure and process in
ethnic relations: increased knowledge and
unanswered questions. In Sociological
Theory and Research, ed. H. M. Blalock,
Jr., pp. 243-57. NY: The Free Press. 448 pp.
Wilson, F. D., Taeuber, K. E. 1978. Residen-
tial and school segregation: some tests of
their association. In The Demography of Ra-
cial and Ethnic Groups, ed. F. D. Bean, W.
P. Frisbee, pp. 51-78. NY: Academic. 321
pp.
Wilson, K. L. 1979. The effects of integration
and class on black educational attainment.
Sociol. Educ. 52:84-98
Wilson, K. L., Portes, A. 1980. Immigrant
enclaves: an anlysis of the labor market ex-
periences of Cubans in Miami. Am. J.
Sociol. 86:295-319
Wilson, W. J. 1980a. The Declining Signifi-
cance of Race. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press. 243 pp. 2nd ed.
Wilson, W. J. 1980b. Comparative race and
ethnic relations: issues of theory and re-
search. See Williams 1980, pp. 228-42
Winsberg, M. D. 1979. Housing segregation of
a predominantly middle-class population: re-
sidential patterns developed by the Cuban
immigration into Miami, 1950-74. Am. J.
Econ. Sociol. 38:403-18
Wong, M. G. 1982. The cost of being Chinese,
Japanese and Filipino in the United States:
1960, 1970, 1976. Pac. Sociol. Rev. 25:59-
78
Woodrum, E. 1981. An assessment of
Japanese-American assimilation, pluralism,
and subordination. Am. J. Sociol. 87:157-69
Wright, E. 0. 1978. Race, class and income
inequality. Am. J. Sociol. 83:1368-97
Wurdock, C. 1979. Public school resegrega-
tion after desegregation: some preliminary
findings. Sociol. Focus 12:263-74
Wurdock, C., Farley, R. 1979. School integra-
tion and enrollments in the nation's largest
cities: an anlysis of recent trends. Proc. Am.
Stat. Assoc.: Soc. Stat. Sect., pp. 359-65
Yancey, W. L., Ericksen, E. P., Juliani, R. N.
1976. Emergent ethnicity: a review and re-
formulation. Am. Sociol Rev. 41:391-403
Yinger, J. M. 1968. A research note on inter-
faith marriage statistics. J. Sci. Stud. Rel.
7:97-103
Yinger, J. M. 1981. Toward a theory of assi-
milation and dissimilation. Ethnic and Ra-
cial Stud. 4:249-64
Zangwill, I. 1914. The Melting Pot: Drama in
FourActs. NY: Macmillan. 214 pp. rev. ed.

America S Melting Pot Reconsidered

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

America S Melting Pot Reconsidered

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

America's Melting Pot Reconsidered

Author(s): Charles Hirschman

S-ar putea să vă placă și