Further to the economic factors that contribute to in-migrant segregation there are more complex social processes and interactions that play their part. As Scott (1980) identified, intraurban residential structure is differentiated on three dimensions: social rank, familism, and ethnicity. The first two factors are really applicable to the charter group and any immigrants who are fully integrated into that society, whereas ethnicity and the host society’s attitudes towards it play an important role in the spatial distribution of in-migrant groups. It has already been identified that immigrants are forced to live in inner city areas due to their low economic status, as a result of this however, they must attempt to reside in the same areas as the working class, the one social group that feel most threatened by them. As both groups constitute the low-skilled labour force, they are essentially competing for the same jobs. Consequentially the socially established working class are able to isolate the minority groups through a variety of mechanisms, forcing them to live in the most undesirable housing, away from the most sought after employment opportunities. They may achieve this through the blocking strategy of promoting social hostility, petty violence and deliberate vandalism; as well as discrimination in both the private and public sector housing markets.
While charter group attitudes and structural effects go along way towards explaining residential segregation, they do not satisfactorily explain the clustering of minority groups into discrete, homogeneous territories. Such clusters must also be seen as defensive in function as conflict situations in cities like those outlined above lead migrants to feel threatened. This will particularly apply to recent immigrants that are obviously culturally and indeed racially different from the host population. The perceived threat may materialise in the form of physical violence or as a psychological threat. At the same time, because of this threat the minority group may have a strong urge to internal cohesion, so that the cultural heritage of the group may be maintained (Boal, 1974). Four principle functions have been identified for the clustering of minority groups: defence, mutual support, preservation and attack. Urban areas are seen as dangerous places, especially when charter group hostility is rife, therefore an ethnic group will tend to agglomerate to form a ‘safe haven’ or ‘buttress’ to protect against the hazards of urban life.
As illustrated above there are a number of different factors that lead to residential segregation and each needs to be addressed separately for the complete assimilation process to take place. Attitudes and the social outlook of minority groups is just as important as those of the charter group and these interact with the economic status of immigrants to determine their locational options within the urban environment. Early theories of assimilation revolved around Park’s rather basic idea of the ‘race-relations’ cycle which involved stages of ‘contact, competition, accommodation and eventual assimilation’ of the in-migrant group into the host society. However, much academic argument surrounded the premise that true assimilation results in unidirectional cultural change, i.e. the erasure of all signs of ethnic origins from the minority group. The problem of confusion over the various formulations of assimilation was not solved until Milton Gordon’s Assimilation in American Life (1964) provided a systematic dissection of the concept.
Within his multidimensional formulation, Gordon identifies seven facets of the assimilation process. Of most importance to his conceptual scheme are what he terms acculturation, structural assimilation and identificational assimilation. They each work on a different spatial and temporal scale, but all interact to produce an end result of decreased segregation whether it be social or spatial. Acculturation or behavioural assimilation involves the acquisition by the minority group of a cultural life in common with the charter group (Knox 1982). This ‘adoption’ of the ‘cultural patterns’ of the host society, typically comes first and is inevitable, Gordon argued. He distinguished between intrinsic cultural traits, those that are ‘vital ingredients of the groups cultural heritage,’ exemplified by religion and musical traits, from extrinsic traits, which ‘tend to be products of the historical vicissitudes of the group’s adjustment to the local environment’ and thus are deemed less central to group identity (Gordon 1964, cited in Alba and Nee, 1997).
Gordon argues however, that acculturation could not occur without being accompanied by other forms of assimilation, and the stage of acculturation could only last indefinitely without socio-economic assistance. The catalyst for more complete infiltration of minority groups into their host societies must involve structural assimilation. Gordon defines this as ‘the entrance of a minority group into the social cliques, clubs, and institutions of the core society at the primary group level.’ This would eventually result in an even distribution of the minority group through the social, educational and occupational strata of the charter group. It signifies an increased acceptance and equal treatment of minority groups by the host population and an end to the discrimination and social hostility that is so fundamental to initial residential segregation.
Most academics accept that structural assimilation is a slower process than acculturation, and that is normally achieved through prolonged contact between different cultural groups through mass institutions such as public schools and the media. Increased acceptance into the educational and occupational structures of host populations provides ethnic minorities with the ability to obtain improved employment and thereby enhance their socio-economic status. This directly relates to their spatial mobility in that they can seek out neighbourhoods with better housing, amenities, schools and prestige, places where natives tend to predominate. Hence, acculturation and structural assimilation reduces social distance between ethnics and natives, providing ethnics with the desire (through higher cultural standards) and economic means to achieve spatial assimilation within the urban environment.
Further to debates about the dimensions and stages of assimilation there has been much academic debate surrounding the perceived end point of the process. Gordon proposed three alternative models: one of Anglo-conformity, the Melting Pot and Cultural Pluralism. The central assumption of the Anglo-conformity model is the directional assimilation of all ethnic minorities towards the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant mould, essentially that A + B + C = A. As a model it ignores other assimilation dimensions, being therefore indifferent to the occurrence or non-occurrence of structural assimilation. The Melting Pot model offers a more idealistic vision for the future, one of biological and cultural fusion of different peoples, so that a hybrid cultural mix would be created from elements of the cultures of both the charter group and ethnic minorities, essentially A + B + C = D (Kivisto 1995). Kennedy (1954) realised however that this just couldn’t happen, he theorised that although minority group’s national and cultural identity was malleable, their religious identity was not and would be maintained. Therefore three cultures would be created based around the religions of Protestantism, Catholicism and Judaism. The final model is one of Cultural Pluralism which is seen as the most relevant to discussions of assimilation within contemporary urban environments. This involves the maintenance of ethnic identity and heterogeneity within society. In reality it is unlikely that society could assimilate towards a singular cultural norm. Culturally plural assimilation would result in the widespread acknowledgment and acceptance of the different cultures and ethnicities within that society.
Within Gordon’s theorisation of assimilation it can be acknowledged that the spatial element of the process is barely touched upon. It is however an incredibly important part of the desegregation process and has actually received much attention in contemporary discussion about assimilation. The main proponent of this academic argument is Douglas Massey, who has coined the ideas of spatial and residential assimilation. Spatial assimilation as a concept is linked to a model of incorporation that is loosely based on the Chicago School’s ecological tradition and that views the spatial distribution of groups as a reflection of their human capital and the state of their assimilation, broadly construed. The basic tenets of the ecological model are that residential mobility follows from the acculturation and social mobility of individuals and that residential mobility is an intermediate step on the way to structural assimilation. Broadly speaking, it follows the three generational and race relations cycle first envisaged by the Chicago School, but popularised by Gans and Sandberg (1973) as ‘straight-line assimilation’. This attempts to give a dynamic dimension to Gordon’s somewhat static formulation and it implies that generations are the motor of ethnic change. Each generation faces a distinctive set of issues in its relationships to the larger society and to the ethnic group, and their resolution brings about a distinctive pattern of accommodation. Segregation is thought of as an inevitable first stage of Park’s (1950) ‘accommodation’ of a minority group that has recently migrated to a foreign country. The second generation has grown up within this foreign country and been exposed to its culture, and way of life. This combined with the fact that they have had more time to improve their economic status allows partial migration of certain immigrants away from the city centre towards the suburbs. The third generation completes this centrifugal movement, resulting in nigh on complete assimilation with the host society.
This process relies on Massey and Denton’s (1998) assumption that as members of minority groups acculturate and establish themselves in labour markets, they attempt to leave behind less successful members of their groups and convert occupational mobility and economic assimilation into residential gain. This process entails a tendency towards the dispersion of minority groups’ members, opening the way for increased contact with members of the ethnic majority and thus desegregation. Therefore not only is there a high degree of correlation between spatial pattern and social behaviour, but also an interaction between the two, decreasing segregation and promoting further social interaction across and among various ethnic groups. Alba et al (1997) provide concrete evidence of the intergenerational suburbanisation of minority groups.
Table 1 – Suburban-Central city distributions for Germans, Irish and Italians, 1980 and 1990
It can be observed that there is a general trend towards suburbanisation by all three ethnic groups. This can be assumed to be a spatial manifestation of the social process of assimilation. According to Duncan and Lieberson (1959), centralisation is an aspect of segregation, and therefore the antithesis of assimilation. The inter-generational shift in the direction of less centralisation indicated in table 1 supports the basic idea of the spatial assimilation model: that with time, as the processes of acculturation and upward mobility occurs, spatial distance between socially defined groups will diminish. Spatial similarity between socially defined groups correlates to the degree of social interaction, and hence, assimilation.
In contradiction to this argument however, Taeuber and Tauber in their classic study of ‘The Negro as an Immigrant Group’ in 1964 show how social and economic progress of a minority group does not always have to correspond with the spatial and residential assimilation of that group. The generally accepted trend, illustrated by Taeuber and Tauber and previous studies suggested that improving socioeconomic status of immigrant groups has gone hand in hand with decreasing residential segregation. In contrast, Black residential segregation from whites increased steadily throughout cities across the United States over the decades included in his study, despite advances in the socioeconomic status of African Americans. Taeuber and Taeuber made many comparisons between the assimilation of Puerto Rican and Negro immigrants.
‘On every measure, the Puerto Rican population is less well off – it is less educated, has lower income, is more crowded, is less likely to own homes, is less well housed, and lives in older buildings. Yet the index of residential segregation (computed with respect to NWNP) for Puerto Ricans is 67 compared with 82 for Negroes.’
Taeuber and Taeuber (1964)
Peach (1996) argues that there is a fundamental difference between the experience of assimilation of the Europeans and African-Americans. The European model is essentially voluntaristic and positive, while on the other hand; the African-American model is negative and imposed. So while the ecological model is adequate for explaining the positive self-ascriptive experience of desegregation and assimilation for the Europeans, it is incapable of accounting for the negative proscriptive forces that prevents groups with high visibility and cultural devotion from dispersing both socially and spatially.
In conclusion it can be seen that there is most definitely a spatial element to assimilation, which is itself a complex process of many dimensions that results in the reduction of social and spatial distance between ethnic minorities and a host society. Assimilation doesn’t necessarily produce a homogeneous society as predicted by the ethno-centric models of Anglo-Conformity and the Melting Pot; it is more like that a culturally plural society will result. However, the degree to which ethnic minorities can culturally assimilate will depend upon their ability to mix spatially as this is a precursor to increased social interaction across ethnic boundaries. In this way we can see the importance of spatial integration to the overall process.
Bibliography
R. Alba and V. Nee (1997), “Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration”, International Migration Review, Vol. 31 pp.826-874.
O.D. Duncan and S. Lieberson (1959), “Ethnic segregation and Assimilation”, American Journal of Sociology, 64, pp364-374.
K.E. Taeuber and A. Taeuber (1964), “The Negro and an Immigrant Group” American Journal of Sociology, 69, 4, pp374-382.
C. Peach (1976), Urban Social Segregation.
M. Gordon (1964), Assimilation in American Life.
P. Kivisto (1995) Americans All: race and ethnic relations in historical, structural and comparative perspectives.
D.S. Massey (1984) Ethnic residential segregation: A theoretical synthesis and empirical review. Sociology and Sociological Reasearch 69, 3, 315-350.
P. Knox (1992), An Introduction to Urban Geography.
