Hirschman - Ars Copy 2

Annual Reviews
www.annualreviews.org/aronline
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

by UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LIBRARY on 10/13/05. For personal use only.
Ann.Rev. Sociol. 1983.9.397-423

Copyright 1983by AnnualReviewsInc. All rights reserved
AMERICAS MELTING POT

RECONSIDERED
Charles
Hirschman
Departmentof Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NewYork14853

Americais Gods Crucible, the great Melting Pot whereall the races of Europeare melting
and re-forming! Hereyou stand, goodfolk, think I, whenI see themat Ellis Island, here you
stand in your fifty groups, with your fifty languagesand histories, and your fifty blood
hatreds andrivalries. But youwontbe long like ttaat, brothers, for tlaese are the fires of God
youve cometo--these are fires of God.A fig for your feuds and vendettas! Germansand
Frenchmen,Irishmen and Englishmen,Jews and Russians--into the Crucible with you all!
Godis making the American.
Zangwill (1914:33)
INTRODUCTION
These powerful words are spoken by David, the young, idealistic Jewish
immigrantin Zangwills pre-WorldWarI play, The Melting Pot. In spite of the
horror of experiencing a pogromin 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 promisedland of America.
Andto clinch the point, the play ends with Davidfalling in love with a Russian
Christian immigrantwhojust happensto be the daughter of the manwholed the
massacre of Davids family. Only in America!
This romantic vision of Americansociety will strike most modemobservers
as both naive and rather patronizing--because of the implicit assumptionthat
most immigrants and their descendants are anxious to shed their social and
cultural heritage. But it is easy to forget howradical wasthe meltingpot viewof
Americas future. It was a direct challenge to orthodoxy. Zangwill was not
oblivousto the pervasivebigotry of his times; in fact, his play wasa calculated
effort to exposethese popular attitudes. Therewas nothing subtle about racism
397
0360-0572/83/0815-0397502.00
Annual Reviews
398
HIRSCHMAN

and intolerance in Americafor mostof us the first half of this century. Perhapsa
few exampleswill illustrate the tenor of ethnic divisions during this period.
In response to a letter of mild criticism, MayorFiorella La Guardiaof New
Yorkreceived the following response from the then President, Herbert Hoover
(cited in Baltzell 1964:30):
It seemsto me,a Republican,that youare a little out of your class, in presumingto criticize
the President. It strikes me as impudence. Youshould go back to where you belong and
advise Mussolinion howto makegoodhonest citizens in Italy. TheItalian~ are predominately our murderers and boot-leggers .... Like a lot of other foreign sp.awn, you do not
appreciate the country which supports and tolerates you.
Andconsider the candor of HavardPresident 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 manyother essential rights of citizenship, put black
Americansinto a unique situation of powerlessness(Lieberson 1980:Ch.3-5).
In spite of these realities, or perhaps because of them, the melting pot
becamethe symbolof the liberal and radical vision of Americansociety. In a
sense, it wasa political symbolused to strengthen and legitimize the ideology
of Americaas a land of opportunity whererace, 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 "angloconformity" (Gordon 1964:Ch. 4). Immigrants were encouraged to learn English 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 Gleason1979, for a summaryof the varied meaningsof 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 Americansociology. The
progressive social views of somescholars coincided with the theory positing
that race/ethnic divisions wouldeventually disappear, or at least be minimized,
in industrial society. Morethan ideology, this was an attempt to develop a
scientific thesis that wouldguide empirical research. The coincidence of the
effort to reject the ideological hegemonyof social Darwinismand the early
emphasison 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 developmentof the assimilation
Annual Reviews

AMERICAS MELTING POT 399

h theoretical~and
\
1 in terms o fbot its
perspec tive in A
mericansocio ogy,
empirical foundations. ThenI review the evidence on whetherthere has\b~eena trend
towards ethnic assimilation in the United States. Various dimensionsof assimilation are included in the review, such as socioeconomicinequality, residential segregation, intermarriage, and popular attitudes. The intent is not to
provide a survey of race and ethnic relations as a whole(Williams1975, 1980)
or to review the field from a comparativeperspective (Wilson1980b; van den
Berghe1981) but rather to assess the state of the assimilation paradigmfrom
within its ownframe of reference. Accordingly, the review of the empirical
literature is purposelylimited to studies of ethnic and racial inequality in the
United States. Whilethe assimilation modelhas been the dominantperspective
in sociologicalstudies of ethnic relations, it has beenthe subject of muchdebate
as well as theoretical challenge.In the final part of the paper, I reviewsomeof
the major alternative theoretical frameworksand their implications for the
position of the assimilation perspective in guiding sociological research.
ORIGINS
AND DEVELOPMENT
ASSIMILATION
THEORY
OF SOCIOLOGICAL
Robert Park and the "Chicago School" of sociology (Faris 1967) were the
founders of modemsociological theory and research on race and ethnic relations in the early decades of the 20th century. Park and his colleagues at
Chicagoencouragedstudents to study all aspects of the local environment,
including race and ethnic relations. At the time, Chicagowasa polyglot city,
full of ethnic neighborhoodspopulated by recent immigrantsfrom Europeand
black migrants from the South. Park had a rather unique backgroundfor an
academic,first workingas a newspaperreporter and later spendinga numberof
years as the personal secretary and aide of BookerT. Washington,President of
Tuskegee Institute (for more background on Park, see Park 1950: v-ix;
Raushenbush1979). Fromthese experiences and their early studies, Park and
his students formulated what becamethe dominantsociological theory of race
and ethnic change.
Oneof the first expressions of Parks viewswas presented in the famousPark
&Burgesstextbook(first publishedin 1921), the primaryauthority in the field
for almost 20 years (Park &Burgess 1969:xiii). Park &Burgess defined the
central texms of accommodationand assimilation:
Accommodation
.... a processof adjustment,
that is, anorganization
of socialrelationsand
attitudesto presentor to reduceconflict,to controlcompetition,
andto maintain
a basisof
securityin thesocialorderfor persons
andgroups
of divergent
interestsandtypesto carryon
together
theirvariedlife activities.
Assimilation
is a processof interpenetration
andfusionin which
persons
andgroups
acquire
the memories,
sentiments,
andattitudesof otherpersonsor groups,and,bysharingtheir
Annual Reviews
400
HIRSCHMAN
experience and history, are incorporated with them in a commoncultural life (Park
Burgess 1969:360).

They also suggested a sophisticated version of what later becamelabelled the

"contact hypothesis":
Associal contact initiates interaction, assimilation is its final perfect product. Thenature of
the social contacts is decisive in the process. Assimilationnaturally takes place mostrapidly
wherecontacts are primary, that is, wherethey 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).
Theseideas represent an early formulationof what later becameParks thesis

of the race-relations cycle of "contact, competition, accommodation
and eventual assimilation" (Park 1950:150). Park believed that forces of change
modemsocieties would tend to eradicate divisions based upon irrelevant
criteria of language, culture, and race. Parks manyideas on race and ethnic
relations were never tied together in a formal theory of change.However,there
appear to be two essential elementsin his perspective. First, ethnic antagonism
and divisions arose naturally--from ethnocentrism and the competitive processes of modemsociety--after contact had been established. Second, there was
the inevitable process of assimilation--which could be slowed down,but not
reversed, in modemsocieties. The motors of change are the democratic
political institutions and the industrial organization of modem
society that
recruits and promotesindividuals on the basis of merit, not ethnic origin. For a
more detailed elaboration of Parks ideas, see Geschwender(1978:19-26).
Theseideas havecontinuedto be the hallmarkof assimilation theory until the
present day. Gunnar Myrdal (1964) emphasized the moral dilemma in the
contrast betweenAmericanideals of equality and the practice of racial discrimination. He suggested that the democratic political process wouldeventually
override the forces of prejudice and discrimination. The associated hypothesis
that the economicorganization of modem
society is incompatible with discrimination is part of the broader thesis of industrialism (Kerr et al 1964).
efficiency and productivity are the primary objectives of modem
business, then
hiring and promotiondecisions based uponkinship or other ascriptive criteria
will erode the competitive position of any firm. Modem
society also brings
widespreadurbanization and universal education, whichfacilitate bureaucratic
decision makingon the basis of credentials and skills, not race or ethnicity.
These ideas underpin the most recent comprehensive empirical analysis of
changein racial and ethnic stratification in the United States (Featherman
Hauser 1978:Ch. 6 & 8).
There has been considerable refinement and redirection of the dominant
paradigmof assimilation that beganwith Park. Frazier (1957) agreed that the
Annual Reviews

AMERICASMELTINGPOT
401
eventual outcomewouldbe one of assimilation, but he emphasizedthe colonial

expansionof Europeanpeoples as the major factor that gave rise to the "race
problem." He noted that the economicinterests that occasioned exploitation
would have to be curbed before tolerance based upon scientific knowledge
could triumph over prejudice and discrimination (Frazier 1957:Ch.18). Lieberson (196 la) elaborates uponthe natural history approachwith a typologybased
uponthe relative powerof populations and their migration status at contact.
Van den Berghe (1967) suggests an alternative model of change that begins
with a paternalistic and exploitative systemof race relations rooted in the
traditional agrarian order. This systemthen shifts with industrialization to a
competitive system with a heightened degree of racial antagonismin modern
societies. Vanden B erghes (1981) most recent theoretical workbegins with
sociobiological frameworkbut then turns to an exceedinglyinsightful review of
comparativeethnic relations. [For other broad theoretical perspectives, see
Shibutani & Kwan(1965), Newman(1973), and Schermerhom(1970).]
Severalcritics havequestionedthe logic and content of Parks thesis, and of
any assimilation model. Lyman(1968) faulted Parks theory as an untestable
thesis that does not specify whenchangesin 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 challengedthe argumentthat industrialization
will lead to a diminutionof racial discrimination. He pointedout 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 morelikely adapt to existing racial/ethnic
mores rather than change them. Other critics of assimilation theory have
pointed to its ideological blinders (Metzger1971), its deterministic logic, and
the assumptionthat all societies will follow a unilinear path of change(Barth
Noel 1972).
In spite of these manyweaknesses,the assimilation perspective, broadly
defined, continues to be the primary theoretical frameworkfor sociological
research on race and ethnic inequality. This results partially from a lack of
convincingtheoretical alternatives. [For a samplingof recent general essays,
see Simpson(1968), Gordon(1975), Pars6ns (1975), Abramson(1980),
Yinger(1981). ] For all its inadequacies,the assimilation perspectivehas served
to organizethe field and to stimulate a broadrangeof empiricalstudies. Its role
as a general paradigmhas been strengthenedby several major studies, although
it continues to be plagued by controversy.
Gordons(1964) landmarkstatement provided the long-neededclarification
of concepts that has guided muchof the subsequent empirical research in the
field. He identified seven types of assimilation: cultural (acculturation),
structural, marital (amalgamation),identificational, attitude receptional (abs-
Annual Reviews

402
HIRSCHMAN
ence of prejudice), behavioral receptional (absence of discrimination),

civic (absence of value and powerconflict). Althoughthese types of assimilation are obviously interrelated, Gordonsclassification settled muchof the
confusion by noting that the several dimensionsof assimilation need not always
coincide. Gordonsownassessment of Americanethnicity was that cultural
assimilation had largely been achieved, but that structural assimilation (especially within primary groups) had only been achieved in a few settings (e.g.
amongintellectuals). Muchof the recent empirical literature on structural
assimilation (reviewedbelow)has a direct or indirect link to Gordonsconceptual outline.
The latest reaction to the assimilation paradigmhas comefrom the "revival
of ethnicity" school. In the late 1960sand throughoutthe 1970s, manyscholars
and social observers argued that ethnicity remainedan important, perhaps the
most important, source of social and l~olitical consciousness (Novak1972).
Glazer &Moynihan
(1970) have demonstratedthe vitality of ethnic politics
NewYork. Additionally, religion and nationality remain strong predictors of
political behavior and attitudes (Hamilton 1972:194-211). One of the most
influential proponentsof the "ethnicity does matter" thesis is AndrewGreeley
(1974). He has documentedthat 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 domainsof American society.
EVIDENCE ON TRENDS TOWARDASSIMILATION IN

AMERICAN SOCIETY
As with manyother general social science theories, the assimilation perspective
has gradually cometo be understood as multidimensional and probabilistic.
Althoughfor manycritics 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(Gordon1964). For instance, a trend towardequality
schooling maynot 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. Thesevariations insure that basic studies will be replicated, thus
providing the base for cumulativeempirical inquiry and theoretical revision.
In this section, I provide a selective overviewof the evidenceon the extent
and degree of ethnic assimilation in Americansociety, ordered by four key
Annual Reviews
AMERICASMELTINGPOT
403
indicators: socioeconomicinequality, segregation in housing and schools,

intermarriage, and prejudice. Since the periods, populations, methodsof analysis, and theoretical perspectives that guidedthe studies are diverse, it is not
possible to resolve conflicting findings or interpretations. However,some
general patterns are evident.

Socioeconomic
Assimilation
Educationis a key indicator of achievementin the socioeconomichierarchy and

is also a resource (investment) that influences subsequentsocial and economic
mobility. For minorities and immigrants,schoolingis seen as the primary step
towardfull participation in Americansociety. Since compulsoryschooling, at
least throughthe secondarylevel, is providedfree by the state, equality would
seemmorelikely here than in other institutions. Yet importantbarriers to equal
schoolingexist--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, wherethe majority of blacks lived (Lieberson1980:Ch.6). In the latter
part of the 19th and early years of the 20th century, black migrantsto the North
and their children had approximatelyequal (morein somecases) 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
whyEuropeanethnics were able to makefaster 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 Europeanimmigrants
and their descendantsdeclined. Theinterpretation of differential treatment is
consistent with the evidence from the Philadelphia Social History Project,
which reveals muchgreater discrimination against blacks than against white
immigrants, although racial socioeconomicgaps appear to be far wider in 19th
century Philadelphia than Lieberson observes in other Northern cities at the
same time (Hershberg et al 1979).
Whileeducational differentials by race and ethnicity have not disappeared,
manyrecent studies point to a markedreduction in recent years (Duncan
1965:Ch. 4; Hauser & Featherman1976; Featherman & Hauser 1978:329-34).
Yet there remainsignificant differences betweenthe proportions of white and
minority youth (a) retained below their modalgrade level (U.S. Commission
on Civil Rights 1978:Table2.1) and (b) progressing fromhigh school to college
(Mare 1981:Chart 4/1A). These exceptions notwithstanding, the general trend
Annual Reviews

404
HIRSCHMAN
is toward convergence in the quantity of schooling received. Weknowmuch

less about equality in the quality of schooling. This issue has beensubject to
morespeculative thought than careful study.
Thereis a considerablebodyof literature on trends and patterns of ethnic and
racial inequality in occupational attainment and incomes.Mostof this research
focuseson 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-WordWarII
period, which witnessed renewed economicexpansion and an expanded governmental role, created a major break with the past, especially for racial
minorities (Wilson 1980a).
The popular saga of immigrantsuccess, rising from poverty to the economic
mainstream, is not without foundation (Handlin 1951; Sowell 1981). Hutchinson (1956) observes a distinct shift toward more skilled occupations from
1910to 1950amongthe foreign-born and their children. Not only were the new
Europeanimmigrants highly motivated and anxious to improve opportunities
for their children, but the expansionof employment
in the industrial cities of the
East and Midwestgreatly facilitated their economicprogress. Regardlessof the
exact mix of reasons, European ethnic populations have made considerable
socioeconomic progress during the 20th century (Greeley 1974; Lieberson
1980). Recent studies of socioeconomicinequality by religion and ethnicity
show relatively minor differences (Goldstein 1969; Greeley 1978; Roof
1979a).
This general pattern of economicmobility is also evident in studies of recent
white immigrants to the United States (Chiswick 1.977, 1978, 1979, 1980;
Massey1981 a:72-76). Not all old and new immigrants and their descendents
have made it in Americansociety; most are not affluent, and a nontrivial
fraction remain at the bottomof the socioeconomicladder. However,ethnicity
and religion do not appear to be major predictors of an individuals education,
occupation, or earnings. Nor is there any sign of direct economicdiscrimination in recent years (Duncan&Duncan1968). However,a long legacy of social
bigotry towards those of Southern and Eastern Europeanorigins identified as
Catholics and Jews~hasonly slowly receded (Pavalko 1980). Baltzell (1964)
documentsthe pervasive anti-Semitism of the Americanelite that bars Jews
from private clubs and from the upper echelons of manycorporate social
circles. See Auerbach(1976) for a well-documentedstudy of intolerance and
exclusionary practices in the legal profession.
The economicproblems faced by European ethnics pale in comparison to
those encounteredby racial minorities and Hispanics. There was little trend
towards socioeconomicassimilation of these minorities prior to WorldWarII,
Annual Reviews

AMERICASMELTINGPOT
405
which van den Berghelabeled as a period ofHerrenvolk dembcracy(1967:77).

Althoughblacks left the rural Southto migrate to cities in the Southand North,
their economicopportunities were restricted to the bottomof the urban hierarchy (Wilson 1980a:Ch. 4; Geschwender1978:Ch. 9). Lieberson (1980) notes
the hostility of organizedlabor, whichlimited mobility of blacks into skilled
manualoccupations, as a factor fundamentallydifferent from anything experienced by SECEuropeanethnics. At the same time, widespreadprejudice on the
WestCoast, by elites and unions alike, froze Asians out of most sectors of the
general economy(McWilliams1945; Daniels 1977). Perhaps most significant
wasthe acquiescence,and even the support, of the state in the maintenanceof a
caste-like systemin the racial division of labor during this era.
The system began to change towards the end of the NewDeal era. After
receiving someprotective legislation in the 1930s, labor unions, particularly
the CIO, began to organize blacks and whites on a commonbasis (Bonacich
1976; Geschwender1977). After WordWar II the federal government was
slowly but firmly directed towardan anti-discriminatory policy. Yet minority
economicgains were slow. The studies of Siegel (1965) and Duncan(1967,
1968, 1969) established societal discrimination as the major cause of blackwhite economicinequality. Recent studies (Featherman&Hauser 1976; Farley
1977a; Hirschman& Wong1982) show moderate gains in the socioeconomic
position of blacks and a reductionin 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 socioeconomicpositions far
below those of Europeanethnic groups.
Oneof the most significant debates in recent years has been over William
Wilsonsthesis of greater differentiation within the black population (1980b:
especially Ch. 8). Wilsonargues that the moderationof societal discrimination
has improvedthe chances for social mobility of well-educated black youth but
that the plight of poorly educatedblack youth in central cities has worsened.
This pattern is not due to racial discrimination, Wilsoncontends, but rather to
structural changesin the economythat offers minimalemployment(or none at
all) for the urban black "underclass".
On the other hand, Asian-Americans, especially those of Chinese and
Japanese origin, have madesignificant strides towardsocioeconomicequality
with the majority population (Hirschman &Wong1981, 1982). These gains
are more evident in education and occupational levels than in earnings. A
significant economicdisadvantage for Chinese-Americansappears not to be
explained by the usual backgroundvariables (Wong1982). [For more detailed
studies of Asian-Americanstratification, see Kuo&Lin (1977); Hurh et
(1978); Montero & Tsukashima (1977); Montero (1981); and Woodrum
(1981).]
This reading of the evidence on trends in socioeconomicinequality provides
Annual Reviews
406
HIRSCHMAN
general support for the melting pot thesis for Europeanethnics, but not for
black Americans. Even during the growth era after World War II, and with
governmentopposing discrimination, progress has been hesitant; it mayalso
have favored blacks with the resources to take advantageof the newopportunities (Wilson 1980a).

Segregation
If racial and ethnic populations are separated by an uncrossablesocial gulf (as
whereslavery 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. Segregation arises not only fromthe authority of the dominantpopulation, but also
from a tendency amongnew immigrants to desire neighborhoods and local
institutions that reinforce their cultural orientations. Anadditional explanation
for segregation betweenethnic populations maybe an independentfactor such
as social class or the availability of housingat the timeof arrival. In this section,
I explore the evidence on these explanations as I review the literature on race
and ethnic segregation in Americancities.
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 necessity for blacks whoworkedin domesticand personal service to live close to
the homesof their employers. However,such proximity did not confer any
locational advantages. The homesof blacks were most often shacks in nearby
alleys, and Jim Crowlaws strictly regulated behaviorand limited opportunities.
Evidencefrom 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 workwas the primary determinant of
residential location, and this was the primary reason for ethnic segregation-except for blacks, whowere concentrated in black neighborhoodsregardless of
employment(Hershberget al 1979). Usinga measureof isolation that taps the
potential for interaction, Liebersonfinds that blacks in Northerncities wereless
segregated from whites than were the new SECEuropean immigrants in the
early years of the 20th century (Lieberson 1980: Ch. 9). To Lieberson these
patterns reflect the greater cultural gap between SECimmigrants and native
whites than betweenblacks and whites and also a higher degree of voluntary
clustering by the new immigrants. But after 1910, ethnic segregation between
Europeanimmigrant groups and native whites steadily declined while blackwhite segregation increased (Lieberson 1980:270-77).
This general pattern of declining white ethnic segregation and a wideningor
maintenance of high black-white segregation is found in a wide variety of
Annual Reviews

AMERICASMELTINGPOT
407
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
places (central cities, suburbs, or ubanizedareas), there appears to have been
.little or no decline in the level of residential segregationbetweenblacks and
whites in urban areas of the United States through 1970. Moreover,there is
little systematicvariation in segregationassociated with city size, the proportion of the minoritypopulation,or any other city characteristic. Racial segregation is a constant throughoutthe country.
Withthe exception of the Puerto Rican population (Rosenberg&Lake 1976;
Massey198 lb), Hispanic populations seem to follow the pattern of European
ethnics morethan the black population. Levels of Hispanic-Anglosegregation
are generally lower than black-white levels and seem to have moderatedover
time (Massey1979a, 1981a; Lopez 1981). Most significant is the fact that
increasing Hispanic socioeconomicstatus is associated with a lessening of
residential segregation (Massey1979b), a pattern not foundfor blacks (Taeuber
& Taeuber 1964; Taeuber 1968; Farley 1977b).
The current cause of black-white residential segregation is not minority
choice; mostblacks 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 becomemoreliberal,
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 impedeintegration. Whilethere is little evidencefor
the "white flight" hypothesis that integration causes whites to leave their
neighborhoods, whites stop movinginto newly integrated areas almost completely (Molotch1969a; Guest & Zuiches 1969; Frey 1979). Not surprisingly,
this soon creates all-black neighborhoods.For manyyears the institutional
environmentof lending agencies, federal agencies, and real estate brokers
workedto maintain segregation. Even with a change in governmentpolicy, the
rewardstructure of the real estate marketencouragesthe 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, assumingthat the ethnic
economyi.s large enough to absorb potential workers (Semyonov& Tyree
1981; Winsberg1979). Generally, however,segregation meansless access to
opportunities in the broader society: poorer housing and neighborhoods,inferior 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
Annual Reviews

408
HIRSCHMAN
Van Valey 1979). Presumablypeople whoinhabit the same geographical area

will interact and eventually participate together in secondary and primary
groups. In transitional neighborhoods, these patterns maynot occur spontaneously (Molotch1969b), but social integration is likely to follow physical
integration in the long run.
Theeducational systemhas also been the subject of integration studies. Most
of this literature has focuseduponracial rather than ethnic divisions. Several
studies report that integrated schools havepositive effects on the educational
and occupational attainment of black youth and no adverse effect on whites
(Crain 1970; Wilson 1979). Other studies report mixedeffects upon aspirations, attitudes, and subsequent attainments (Hunt 1977; Braddock1980;
Rosenfield et al 1981). Integration mayhave both short- and long-term effects
that are difficult to sort out in the conventional cross-sectional survey. The
context in whichintegration is achievedmayalso affect the nature of its effects.
Historically, most black and white students have attended racially isolated
schools. Significant changecamein the late 1960swhenfederal courts and the
federal governmentbeganto require desegregation of school systems that had a
history of de jure segregation. Major strides were madetoward integration
during this period, largely in Southernschool districts (Farley &Taeuber1973;
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). Muchof the research on the impact of desegregation
policy on "white flight" from schools and cities has ignored the broader
dynamicsof residential mobility and the decline in the numbersof the schoolage white population, which are independent of changes in school desegregation. Several studies have brought a wider demographicperspective to bear on
this vital public policy question (Farley 1976; Sly &Pol 1978; Taeuberet al
1981) and point the way for future research.
Weknowlittle 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. Suchresearch must rely uponnonconventionaldata
sources. Yet their importance cannot be overestimated.
Intermarriage
Morethan any other indicator, intermarriage represents the final outcomeof
assimilation. If the melting pot symbolsuggests a mixtureof the varied ethnic,
Annual Reviews

AMERICASMELTINGPOT
409
religious, and racial groups in the UnitedStates, the children of unions across
these boundaries should be the ultimate product of this vision of American
society. Yet becauseof the very intimacyof family relationships, it is likely
that amalgamation
will be the final step after residential integration, socioeconomicparity, and inter-ethnic tolerance have been achieved.
One of the most widely cited studies in social science has been RubyJo
Reeves Kennedys analysis of intermarriage in NewHaven(Kennedy 1944,
1952). Onthe basis of her interpretation and evocative phrase, "the triple
melting pot," most of the academiccommunityaccepted her thesis that ethnic
divisions within the three major religious groupswere not barriers to intermarriage. This interpretation also reached the general public through Herbergs
well knownbook, Protestant, Catholic, Jew (1960). Yet a careful reanalysis
Kennedysdata has raised importantquestions about the validity of the conclusions (Peach 1980a). It seems that a commonintermarrying population
Catholics is not evident in the data. Catholics from NorthwesternEuropewere
morelikely to intermarry with Protestants from the samenational origins, and
Catholics from Eastern and SouthernEuropewere muchless likely to intermarry with this group. In further reanalysis of the NewHavendata, Peach(1980b)
argues that residential segregation is the primary explanation for patterns of
marital homogamy.
Studies of intermarriage are plagued with a variety of methodologicalproblems. Standard census and survey data sources generally report only the
prevalence of intermarriage amongthe currently married population. If intermarriages are more likely to be disrupted (by separation or divorce), then
cross-sectional data will underestimatethe extent of intermarriage (and give
biased measure of the trend). Data based upon marriage certificates (vital
statistics) are usually limited to the fewstates or areas that record and compile
such basic statistics (usually with little other informationon the characteristics
of brides and grooms). Similarly, both sources of data are likely to contain
interviewer bias that assumesmarriage partners are of similar racial/ethnic
origins [see Heer(1974) for a reviewof these issues]. Anothercentral methodoligical issue whencomparingrates of intermarriage between populations or
across time is the standardization of the relative availability of potential
spouses. For instance, by chance alone, one wouldexpect a higher degree of
intermarriage for Catholics than Protestants because of the smaller pool of
Catholics (potential mates). This problem, while obvious whenstated, has
proven to be a major obstacle to studies of intermarriage.
There appears to have been a significant trend towardintermarriage across
religious boundaries in recent decades (Locke et al 1957; Yinger 1968; Bumpass 1970; Korbin &Goldscheider 1978). Perhaps most dramatic has been the
trend towards interfaith marriage amongCatholics (Alba 1976; Alba &Kessler
1979). Evidenceon the trend of intermarriage amongJewish Americansis less
Annual Reviews

410
HIRSCHMAN
clear-cut, but it is substantial enoughto spark concern amongethnic spokesmen

(Himmelfarb1979; Sklare 1971 :Ch. 6). Studies of intermarriage amongAsian
Americans (Parkman & Sawyer 1967; Tinker 1973; Kikumura& Kitano 1973;
Montero 1980) and Hispanics (Mittelbach &Moore 1968; Murguia & Frisbie
1977; Schoenet al 1978; Fitzpatrick &Gurak1979; Gurak&Fitzpatrick 1982)
also showsecular 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 marriageare still
muchhigher than wouldbe expected by chance, but in general there is a strong
trend toward intermarriage [an exception is the Puerto Rican communityin
NewYork see Gurak &Fitzpatrick (1982)]. The impact of this trend on the
maintenanceof ethnic boundaries and identity remains to be seen.
As in so manyother areas, the patterns of black-white intermarriage differ
from those betweenother 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) showvery low levels of blackwhite intermarriage. For instance, according to 1970census data about 1.2%of
currently married black men(with spouse present) had a white wife and the
corresponding figure for black married womenwas 0.7% (Heer 1974). For
men,but not for women,these data reveal an upwardtrend from 1960, but the
trend is muchsmaller than that for any other ethnic minority. Estimates of
black-white intermarriage are probably biased because a substantial numberof
persons of partial African heritage are assumedto be white. This potential bias
maybe lessenedby the fact that if the race of one spouseis not reported on the
census schedule it is assumedto be the sameas 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 immediatedeterminants of prejudice (Williams 1964; Simpson& Yinger 1972). Most of the
research on racial and ethnic attitudes arises out of social psychological
frameworkthat focuses upon personality correlates of prejudice and the
situational environmentsthat support or discourageracist beliefs and behavior.
The link betweenattitudes (prejudice) and behavior (discrimination) is
plex and dependson the context and manyother 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. Althougha common
research strategy is to construct a compositescale of intolerance based upona
variety of beliefs and predispositions, there are likely to be importantdiffer-
Annual Reviews

AMERICASMELTINGPOT
411
ences in the behavioral correlates and determinants of generalized stereotypes

and morespecific orientations toward minorities.
There appears to have been a dramatic reduction in all dimensionsof racial
intolerance over the past few decades (Campbell 1971:Ch. 7; Greeley
Sheatsley 1971; Taylor et al 1978; Condran1979; Smith 1982), although Tuch
(1981) found little change during the 1970s. This trend spans a number
issues frombeliefs about racial inferiority to a willingnessto accept integration
in housingand other institutions. This acceptanceof "liberal" race attitudes is
evident amongthe white respondents in the 1980NORC
General Social Survey
(percentages are of those giving a response): 77%wouldnot object at all if
memberof the family brought a black friend homefor 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.
Respondentsare likely to qualify their acceptanceof integration if it implies
somegovernmentalintervention or if the integration is beyonda 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
wouldnot like to live in a neighborhoodthat was more than one third black.
Thesources of white attitudes towardminorities is a topic of muchtheoretical and public debate. The variables with the most consistent association with
race attitudes are age and education, with the youngand most highly educated
being the most tolerant (Campbell1971). 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
impactis often interpreted as part of broader social class differences in prejudice. This is in contrast, however,with the historic base of anti-Semitism
amongthe better-educated middle class (Williams 1964:53-56). Hamilton
(1972:Ch.11) questions the hypothesis of greater working-classintolerance
both theoretical and empirical grounds. Thereis, however,evidence that white
workers whoare in greater competition with blacks for employmentare more
likely to be intolerant (Cummings
1980). Social class differences in patterns
response to interviewer questioning mayconfoundresearch 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 governmentintervention is
linked to the tendency amongmost Americansto interpret personal success or
failure as due to individual causes (Kluegel &Smith1982). However,it seems
that government
policies haveoften had a liberalizing effect on the attitudes of
Annual Reviews
412
HIRSCHMAN
whites (Jacobson1978). Even after hostile attitudes and strong prejudice are
reduced, stereotypes of ethnic and racial groupsare likely to persist (McCauley
&Stitt 1980, Lieberson 1982) and to have important consequencesfor social
interaction even if socioeconomicequality 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 melt!ng
pot, for their justification (the melting pot imageis typically only used as
straw man). Yet there is a clear link betweenthe original ideas of Park and
muchof the contemporaryresearch on ethnic stratification, segregation, intermarriage, and prejudice. There is almost always an implicit, if not always
precisely stated, hypothesis that trends will showa moderationof differences
betweenethnic populations. In the analysis of relationships betweenvariables,
elements of "modernity" higher education, large cities, young age, social
mobility, moreinformation--are expected to be associated with a lessening of
ethnic divisions and frictions. Eventhoughmanyof the empirical studies have
yielded negativeevidence,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 conclusionthat more
time or other structural changes are needed before "assimilation" will be
achieved.
Analternative interpretation of the development
of the field wouldbe that the
dependentvariable--inter-ethnic differences has remainedthe same, but that
the general theory of social change has been superceded by a broad range of
specific hypothesestied to sets of causal (independent)variables. Consider,for
example,the following questions from the field of ethnic stratification:
Doesthe percent minority in a city, or other characteristics of the city,
explain variation in ethnic socioeconomicinequality (Blalock 1957; Frisbie
Neidert 1977; Stolzenberg & DAmico1977; Parcel 1979)?
Whatis the effect of inter-regional migration on incomeattainment among
black menand 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 madethat these streams of research and many
others are focused on hypotheses far removedfrom the general and unspecific
theoretical frameworkof the assimilation perspective (indeed, I haveso 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
Annual Reviews

AMERICASMELTINGPOT
413
assumptionsand 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 paradigmor its basic
premises.
Recall that the central elementsof Parks original thesis werethat inequality/
conflict arose naturally after contact--from ethnocentrism and differential
power--and that "leveling influences" in modemsociety gradually led to
accommodation
and assimilation. Both of these premises ignore (or at least
minimize)the role of "interests" in the creation and maintenanceof racial/
ethnic divisions. Whatmotivates prejudice and discrimination, and whyare
they institutionalized (with sanctions) in social organization? Theseissues are
addressed in a group of ideas and hypotheses that might be called "class
approachesto ethnicity and race" (Bonacich1980). The central themeof these
diversealternatives is that the social processesthat dividepeopleby social class
are closely intertwined with the causal mechanismsthat create and sustain
ethnic divisions. Essentially, class theories provide an interpretation for the
maintenanceof ethnicity (both as a subjective identity and in objective differences) basedon reasons other than initial differences and cultural persistance.
Theseaccounts range from the general description of important class differences (Geer 1974) to complextheoretical 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 modem
racial inequality. Cox(1948)wentfurther in this interpretation to posit that the
developmentof capitalism in Europeled to the ideology of racism that was used
to justify the labor exploitation of nonwhitesthroughoutthe word[see Miles
(1980) for a critique of Coxstheory]. Other authors have presented compelling
interpretations of the impactof social structure, including industrial employmentand class position, on the developmentof ethnicity in the United States
(Yanceyet al 1976, Steinberg 1981). This is in contrast to interpretations that
emphasizethe effects of the cultural traditions immigrantsbring with them
(Schooler 1976).
Onceethnic divisions are created, what structural forces tend to reinforce
them?The classic Marxist frameworksuggests that race and ethnicity are used
by employersand other elites to divide the workingclass (Reich 1981; also see
Tabb 1970). According to this interpretation the division created between
minorities and the majority population should weakenthe relative position of
the majority (white) workingclass in the larger society [Szymanski(1976);
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 dynamicof ethnic antagonismin the
Annual Reviews

414
HIRSCHMAN
struggle betweenthe established workingclass and the class of newentrants,

defined by race or ethnicity, whoare put into competition for the samejobs.
Employerstry to use the newworkers, immigrantsor disadvantagedminorities,
to lowerthe price of labor. The established workingclass sees the newworkers
as a threat to their hard-earned gains in the class struggle and attempts to
exclude themthrough expulsion, immigrationbars, and strict caste barriers in
employment.Racismis the ideological fuel used to fire the social movement.
Bonacichhas demonstratedthe utility of her theory in historical studies of
black-white relations in the United States (1975, 1976) and for the case
South Africa (1981a; also see Burawoy1981; Bonacich !981b).
A theoretically troublesomeelementin studies of race and ethnicity has been
the case of successful minorities, such as Jews and Asians in the UnitedStates.
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 economicsuccess is supposed to bring
assimilation according to the conventional theory, these groups are anomalous.
Bonacich(1973) presents a class-based interpretation of middlemanminorities
that emphasizesthe use of kinship ties to build an ethnic economythat both
serves the ethnic minority and competeseffectively with firms in the general
economy.Hostility from the majority population can strengthen ethnic solidarity, which allows the mobilization at low wagesof workers with high motivation (Light 1972). However,once societal prejudice diminishes and good
opportunities becomeavailable in the general economy,ethnic solidarity and
the entrepreneurial economytend to fade (Bonacich &Modell1980). Wilson
Portes (1980; also see Portes 1981)extend these ideas in their interpretation
the immigrant enclave of Cubans in Miami[for a general statement, see
Hechter (1978)].
Oneof the commonest
features of modem
societies is the regional concentration of ethnic populations, accompaniedby highly unequal regional rates of
economicgrowth. Whilethe assumptionis that interregional migration and the
"spread effects" of industrialization will reduce such differences, the experiences of the Celtic fringe in Great Britian and of Quebecin Canadaraise
another interpretation. Following the logic of Hechter (1975), the uneven
spatial growthof modem
capitalism tends to reinforce national ethnic divisions
in both economicand political dimensions. This frameworkhas also been
applied to the United States in various analyses of internal colonialism (Geschwender1978:Ch. 4; Blauner 1972).
Manyof the ideas from these class perspectives specify conditions under
whichethnic divisions and sentiments are likely to be reinforced through the
organization and structure of society. As such, they represent hypothesesthat
can be joined with the body of ideas, methods, and data sources used in the
general assimilation framework.A majorobstacle to this type of interpretation
Annual Reviews
AMERICASMELTINGPOT
415
has beenthe use in the past of different analytical strategies. This seemsto be
less of a problemat present (e.g. Wright 1978).

CONCLUSIONS
Readingthe pace of social change from newspaperheadlines or even from the
number of citations by sociologists may be misleading. The public and
academicfocus on ethnicity and race in the last two decadesmight suggest that
ethnic divisions and ethnic identity are moresalient than ever. Yet evidence
that ethnicity remainsan importantpoint of differentiation does not implythat
its influence is greater than it once was. Wemust separate, both conceptually
and empirically, the cultural and structural dimensionsof ethnicity. Tendencies
to mistakeparts for the wholeand to lumpshort- and long-termtrends together
have caused muchconfusion.
Gans (1979) and Alba (1981) have sharply questioned the depth of
resurgenceof ethnicity amongwhite ethnics in the last decade. As Albaput it,
"Duringthe 1970s, ethnicity could be celebrated precisely because assimilation
had proceeded far enoughthat ethnicity seemedso threatening and divisive"
(1981:96). If ethnicity is no longer a barrier to participation in secondary
primarygroupsand in institutions, it does not haveto be hidden in the closet.
Evenif ethnicity has a lessening impact on socioeconomicroles, it does nbt
necessarily meanthat its cultural and political roles, whichare often tied to
religious institutions and rooted in certain geographicareas, will diminishat the
samepace. 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 necessaryto
state clearly what is meantby the resurgenceof ethnicity.
In his provocative,but very insightful, reanalysis of the role of ethnicity in
Americansociety, Steinberg (1981:253-62)questions the logic of the advocates of ethnic pluralism whoreject the goal of assimilation in American
society. The problem, as Steinberg sees it, is howto achieve full social and
economicequality for ethnic groups whoseek to maintain exclusive social and
cultural organizations. Ethnic spokesmenhave alwaysresisted the melting pot
image as a threat to the cultural survival of the ethnic communityand have
proclaimedthe virtues of ethnic pluralism. Yet most membersof the disadvantaged minorities see the melting pot (or the Americandream)as a promise
their right to get ahead,both economicallyand 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 muchof the current emphasis
on ethnic pluralism as an effort of the fairly established populationsto resist
integration and participation with the currently disadvantagedminorities, much
in the way that the WASP
establishment rejected the melting pot goals of new
immigrantsearlier in the century.
Annual Reviews

416
HIRSCHMAN
Accordingto this interpretation of the bases for the resurgenceof ethnicity

and the general conclusions of the empirical studies reviewedearlier, I conclude that the character of ethnicity has shifted over the last fifty years. It was
once a primary axis of socioeconomicstratification and institutional segregation; it is nowa symbolof cultural and political differentiation. However,for
someminorities, especially blacks and Puerto Ricans, most of the barriers to
achievement
are still in place. Briefly, the evidencein supportof this thesis is as
follows:
1. There are relatively modestsocioeconomicdifferentials amongvarious
white ethnic populations and little evidenceof direct economicdiscrimination.
In spite of significant differences, the trend amongAsian Americansand
Hispanics is toward socioeconomicparity with the majority population. There
is someimprovementin the relative position of blacks, but the gap remains
wide.
2. White ethnic residential integration has been declining for most of the
century. Althoughstill high, Hispanic (except Puerto Rican) residential segregation is also declining and seemsto be partially a function of socioeconomic
position. Black-whitesegregation is extraordinarily high throughoutthe country 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 madein the last decade, but future progress is
muchin doubt.
4. Recent studies consistently point to an upturn in religious and ethnic
intermarriage, particularly for Catholics. This trend is also evident for Hispanics (except Puerto Ricans) and Asians. Black-whiteintermarriage remains
very low levels.
5. Attitudes toward racial minorities have becomemuchmoreliberal in the
post WorldWarII era. Mostof this is expressedin support of equal opportunity
and support for integrated institutions.
All of this is not to suggest that the United States has becomean ethnically
blind society. The numberof Catholics, Jews, and blacks on the SupremeCourt
and in the Cabinet continues to be a newsworthytopic. There are undoubtedly
manysectors of the society, including neighborhoods, clubs, and even some
firms, whereones presumedethnic pedigree remains an important criterion for
admission. Yet the wide-rangingstudies reviewedhere suggest a declining role
for ethnicity in Americansociety. The process seemsgenerally to be progressive, each step towardethnic integration or intermamagenarrowingthe future
range for differentiation on the basis of ethnicity. For black Americans,the
evidenceis far less conclusive. The declines in prejudice and modestsocioeconomicgains contrast with lack of any changein residential integration. Perhaps
the 1980 Censuswill reveal that changein this dimensionoccurred during the
Annual Reviews

AMERICAS MELTING POT
417
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 necessary. 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, industrial) 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 amgreatly indebted to DonnaFish 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. Assimilationandpluralism. In HarvardEncyclopediaof Ethnic
Groups, ed. S. Thernstrom,pp. 150-60.
Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniv. Press. 1076
pp.
Alba,R. D. 1976. Social assimilation among
AmericanCatholic national-origin groups.
Am.Sociol. Rev. 41:1030-46
Alba,R. D. 1981. Thetwilight of ethnicity
amongAmericanCatholics of European
ancestry. Ann.Am.Acad.Polit. Soc. Sci.
454:86-97
Alba,R. D., Kesseler,R. G. 1979.Patterns of
interethnic marriageamongCatholic Americans. Soc. Forces57:124-40
Auerbach, J. S. 1976. UnequalJustice:
Lawyers and Social Changein Modern
America.NY:Oxford. 395 pp.
Baltzell, E. D.1964.TheProtestantEstablishment: Aristocracy&Caste in America.NY:
Vintage Books.429 pp.
Barth, E. A.T., Noel,D. L. 1972.Conceptual

framework
for the analysisof racerelations:
an evaluation. Soc. Forces50:333-48
Beck,E. M. 1980. Discriminationand white
economic
loss: a time series examination
of
the radical model. Soc. Forces 59:14868
Becker,H. J. 1980.Racial segregationamong
places of employment.
Soc. Forces58:76176
Blalock,H. 1957.Percentnon-whiteand discriminationin the South.Am.Sociol. Rev.
22:677-82
Blauner, R. B. 1972. Racial Oppressionin
America. NY:Harper &Row.309 pp.
Blumer,H. 1965. Industrialization and race
relations. In IndustrializationandRaceRelations: A Symposium,ed. G. Hunter, pp.
220-53. London:OxfordUniv. Press. 285
PPBonacich,E. 1972.A theoryof ethnic antagon-
Annual Reviews

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. 81:60128
Bonacich, E. 1976. Advancedcapitalism and
black/white race relations in the United
States: a split labor marketinterpretation.
Am. Sociol. Rev. 41:34-51
Bonacich, E. 1979. The past, present and future of split labor markettheory. 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 approachesto ethnicity and race. Insurg. Sociol. 10:%23
Bonacich, E. 1981a. Capitalism and race relations in South Africa: a split labor market
analysis. In Political Powerand Social
Theory, ed. M. Zeitlin, pp. 23%77.Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 343 pp.
Bonacich, E. 1981b. Reply to Burawoy. In
Political Powerand 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. Berkeley, CA:Univ. Calif. Press, 290 pp.
Braddock,J. H. 1980. The perpetuation of segregation across levels of education: a behavioral assessment of the contact hypothesis. Sociol. Educ. 53:178-86
Bumpass,L. 1970. The trend of interfaith marriage in the UnitedStates. Soc. Biol. 17:25459
Burawoy, M. 1981. The capitalist state in
South Africa: marxist and sociological perspectives on race and class. In Political Power
and Social Theory, ed. M. Zeitlin, pp.
27%335. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
343 pp.
Campbell, A. 1971. White Attitudes Toward
Black People. AnnArbor: 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 Americanization on the earnings of foreign born men.J.
Pol. Econ. 86:897-921
Chiswick, B. 1979. The economicprogress of
immigrants: someapparently universal patterns. In Contemporary Economic Prob-
lems, ed. W. Fellner, pp. 357-99. Washington DC: Am.Enter. Inst. 436 pp.
Chiswick, B. 1980. Immigrant earnings patterns by sex, race, and ethnic groupings.
Monthly Labor Rev. 103:22-25
Condran, J. L. 1979. Changes in white attitudes toward blacks: 1963-1977. Publ.
Opin. Q. 43:463-76
Cox, O. 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 prejudice, 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. Chicago: 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, O. D. 1968. Minorities
and the process of stratification. Am. Sociol.
Rev. 33:356--64
Duncan, O. D. 1967. Discrimination against
Negroes. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci.
371:85-103
Duncan, O. D. 1968. Patterns of occupational
mobility among Negro men. Demography
5:11-22
Duncan,O. D. 1969. Inheritance of poverty or
inheritance of race. In OnUnderstanding
Poverty, ed. D. P. Moynihan, pp. 85-110.
NY: Basic. 425 pp.
Duncan, O. D., Lieberson, S. 1959. Ethnic
segregation and assimilation. Am. J. Sociol.
64:364-74
Fads, R. E. L. 1967. Chicago Sociology:
1920-1932. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.
173 pp.
Farley, R. 1975a.Racial integration in the public 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 Colemanright? Soc. Policy
6:1-10
Farley, R. 1977a. Trendsin racial inequalities:
have the gains of the 1960s disappeared in
the 1970s? Am. Sociol. Rev. 42:18%208
Farley, R. 1977b. Residential segregation in
urbanized areas of United States in 1970:
analysis of social class and racial differences. Demography14:497-518
Farley, R., Taeuber, A. F. 1973. Racial segregation in the public schools. Am.J. Sociol.
79:888-905
Annual Reviews

AMERICAS
Farley, R., Schuman,H., Bianchi, S., Colasanto, 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 neighborhoods: 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 competingmodelsand their
discrepant findings. Sociol. Educ. 53:12339
Featherman, D. 1971. The socioeconomic
achievement of white religio-ethnic subgroups: social and psychological explanations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 36:207-22
Featherman, D. L., Hauser, R. M. 1976.
Changesin the socioeconomicstratification
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 NewYork City: 1975. NY:
Hispanic Res. Cent., Fordham Univ.,
Monogr. No. 2. 100 pp.
Frazier, E. F. 1957. Race and Culture Contacts
in the ModernWorld. Boston: BeaconPress.
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 minoritypopulations:
a comparative analysis. Am. J. Sociol.
82:1007-30
Gans, H. 1979. Symbolicethnicity: the furore
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
WorkerInsurgency: The League of Revolutionary Workers. NY: Cambridge Univ.
Press. 250 pp.
Geschwender,J. A. 1978. Racial Stratification
in America. Dubuque, IA: Win. C. Brown
Co. 282 pp.
Giles, M. W. 1979. Whiteenrollment stability
and school desegregation: a two level analysis. Am. Sociol. Rev. 43:848-64
Glazer, N., MoynihanD. P. 1970. Beyondthe
Melting Pot. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
363pp. 2rid ed.
Gleason, P. 1979. Confusion compounded---melting pot in the 1960sand 1970s. Ethnicity
6:10-20
Glenn, N. D. 1963. Occupational benefits to
MELTING POT
419
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. Socioeconomicdifferentials amongreligious groups in the United
States. Am. J. Sociol. 74:612-31
Gordon, M. M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life. NY:OxfordUniv. Press. 276 pp.
Gordon, M. M. 1975. Towarda general theory
of racial and ethnic group relations. In
Ethnicity: Theory and Experience, ed. N.
Glazer, D. P. Moynihan,pp. 84-110. Cambridge, 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, Denomination, and Inequality. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage. 85 pp.
Greeley, A. M., Sheatsley, P. B. 1971. Attitudes toward racial integration. Sci. Am.
225:13-19
Guest, A. M., Weed,J. 1976. Ethnic residential segregation: patterns of change. Am. J.
Sociol. 81:1088-111
Guest, A. M., Zuiches, J. J. 1969. Another
look at residential turnover in urban neighborhoods:a note on "racial changein a stable
community" by Harvey Molotch. Am. J.
Sociol, 77:457-67
Gurak,D. T., Fitzpatrick, J. P. 1982.Intermarriage amongHispanic ethnic groups in New
York City. Am. J. Sociol. 87:921-34
Gurak, D. T., Kritz, M. M. 1978. Intermarriage patterns in United States: maximizing
information from United States census public use samples. Rev. Pub. Dat. 6:33-43
Hamilton, R. 1972. Class and Politics in the
United States. NY:Wiley. 589 pp.
Handlin, O. 1951. The Uprooted: The Epic
Story of the Great Migrations that Madethe
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 segregation: aproposof 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 Development, 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-whitemarriage in the
United States. J. Mar. Fam. 80:262-73
Heer, D. M. 1974. The prevalence of blackwhite marriage in the United States, 1960
and 1970. J. Mar. Fam. 36:246-58
Annual Reviews

420
HIRSCHMAN
Heer, D. M. 1980. Intermarriage. In Harvard

Encyclopedia of Ethnic Groups, ed. S.
Themstrom, pp. 513-21. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Univ. Press. 1076 pp.
Herberg, W. 1960. Protestant--Catholic-Jew. GardenCity, 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 immigrantsin
Philadelphia: 1850-1880, 1930 and 1970.
Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 441:55 81
Himmelfarb,H. S. 1979. Patterns of assimilation: identification amongAmericanJews.
Ethnicity 6:249-67
Hirschman, C., Wong, M. G. 1981. Trends in
socioeconomic achievement amongimmigrant and native-born Asian Americans,
1960-1976. Sociol. Q. 22:495-513
Hirschman, C., Wong, M. G. 1982. Socioeconomic gains of Asian-Americans, Blacks,
and Hispanics: 1960--1976. Presented at
Ann. Meet. Am.Sociol. Assn., San Francisco, 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 reconsidered. Sac. Forces 56:604-10
Hurh, W., Kim, H., Kim, K. 1978. Assimilation Patterns of Immigrants in the United
States: Case Study of KoreanImmigrantsin
the Chicago Area. Washington DC: University Press of America. 120 pp.
Hutchinson, E. P. 1956. Immigrantsand 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. 84:698705
Kallen, H. M. 1915. Democracyversus the
melting pot. TheNation, Feb. 18, 1915. Reprinted in Culture and Democracy,ed. H.
M. Kallen, NY:Boni & Liveright, 1924.347
PP.
Kantrowitz, N. 1979. Racial and ethnic residential segregation: Boston, 1830-1970.
Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 441:41-54
Kantrowitz, N. 1981. Ethnic segregation: social 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 melto
ing pot? intermarriage trends in NewHaven,
1870-1940. Am. J. Sociol. 49:331--39
Kennedy,R. J. R. 1952. Single or triple melt-
ing pot? intermarriage trends in NewHaven

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. Interracial 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., Goldschhider, 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. NewBrunswick, 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 impactof residential
segregation on ethnic assimilation. Soc.
Forces 40:52-57
Lieberson, S. 1963. Ethnic Patterns in American 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 ImmigrantsSince 1880. Berkeley,
CA:Univ. Calif. Press. 419 pp.
Lieberson, S. 1982. Stereotypes: their consequencesfor race and ethnic interaction. In
Social Structure and Behavior: Essays in
Honor of William Hamilton Sewell, ed. R.
M. Hauser, D. Mechanic, A. O. Hailer, T.
S. Hauser, pp. 47-68. NY:Academic. 480
PPLight, 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., Fleltman, 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 southwest, 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: demography, performance, anff organization. Ann.
Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 453:96-122
Marston, W. G., Van Valey, T. L. 1979. Role
Annual Reviews

AMERICAS
MELTING POT
421
of residential segregationin the assimilation Newman,W. M. 1973. American Pluralism: A

process. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci.
Study of Minority Groupsand Social Theory.
441:13-35
NY: Harper & Row. 307 pp.
Massey, D. S. 1979a. Residential segregation
Novak, M. 1972. The Rise of the Unmeltable
of Spanish Americansin United States urbaEthnics. NY:Macmillan. 321 pp.
nized areas. Demography16:553-63
Parcel, T. L. 1979. Race, regional labor marMassey, D. S. 1979b. Effects of socioeconokets and earnings. Am. Sociol. Rev. 44:262mic factors on the residential segregation of
79
blacks and Spanish-Americans in United
Park, R. E., 1950. Race and Culture. Glencoe,
States urbanized areas. Am. Sociol. Rev.
IL: Free Press. 403 pp.
44:1015-22
Park, R. E., Burgess, E. 1969. Introduction to
Massey, D. S. 1981a. Dimensions of the new
the Science of Sociology. Stud. ed. abridged
immigration to the United States and the
by M. Janowitz. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
prospects for assimilation. Ann.Rev. Sociol.
Press. 460 pp.
7:57-85
Parkman, M. A., Sawyer, J. 1967. Dimensions
Massey,D. S. 1981b. Hispanic residential segof ethnic intermarriage in Hawaii. Am.
regation: a comparisonof Mexicans,Cubans
Sociol. Rev. 32:593-607
and Puerto Ricans. Sociol. Soc. Res.
Parsons, T. 1975. Sometheoretical considera65:311-22
tions on the nature and trends of change of
McCauley,C., StiR, C. L. 1980. Stereotyping:
ethnicity. In Ethnicity: Theory and Experifrom prejudice to prediction. Psychol. Bull.
ence, ed. N. Glazer, D. P. Moynihan,pp.
87:195-208
53-83. Cambridge. MA: Harvard Univ.
McWilliams, C. 1945. Prejudice--JapanesePress. 531 pp.
Americans: Symbol of Racial Intolerance.
Pavalko, R. M. 1980. Racism and the new
Boston, MA:Little, Brown& Co. 337 pp.
immigration:a reinterpretation of assimilation of white ethnics in Americansociety.
Merton, R. 1949. Discrimination and the
American creed. In Discrimination and
Sociol, Soc, Res. 65:56-77
National Welfare, ed. R. M. MacIver, pp.
Peach, C. 1980a. Whichtriple melting pot? a
99-126. NY: Harper. 135 pp.
re-examination of ethnic intermarriage in
Metzger, L. P. 1971. Americansociology and
NewHaven, 1900-1950. Ethnic andRacial
black assimilation: conflicting perspectives.
Stud. 3:1-16
Am. J. Sociol. 76:62747
Peach, C. 1980b. Ethnic segregation and interMiddleton, R. 1976. Regional differences in
marriage. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 70:371prejudice. Am. Sociol. Rev. 41:94-117
81
Miles, R. 1980. Class, race and ethnicity: a
Pettigrew, T. 1973. Attitudes on race and houscritique of Coxs theory. Ethnic and Racial
ing: a social-psychological view. In SegStud. 3:169-87
regation in Residential Areas, ed. A. HawMittelbach, F. G., Moore, J. W. 1968. Ethnic
ley, V. Rock, pp. 21-84. Washington DC:
endogamy--the case of Mexican AmerNatl. Acad. Sci. 235 pp.
icans. Am. J. Sociol. 74:50-62
Portes, A. 1981. Modesof structural incorporaMolotch, H. 1969a. Racial change in a stable
tion and present theories of labor immigracommunity. Am. J. Sociol. 75:226-38
tion. In Global Trends in Migration: Theory
Molotch, H. 1969b. Racial integration in a
and Research on International Population
transition community. Am. Sociol. Rev.
Movements, ed. M. Kritz, C. Keely, S.
34:878-93
Tomasi, pp. 279-97. NY:Cent. Migr. Stud.
Montero, D. 1980. Japanese Americans:
433 pp.
ChangingPatterns of Ethnic Affiliation Over Raushenbush, W. 1979. Robert E. Park:
Three Generations. Boulder, CO: Westview
Biography of a Sociologist. Durham, NC:
Press. 171 pp.
DukeUniv. Press. 206 pp.
Montero, D. 1981. The Japanese-Americans-- Reich, M. 1981. Raciallnequality:A Politicalchangingpatterns of assimilation over three
EconomicAnalysis. Princeton, NJ: Princegenerations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 46:829-39
ton Univ. Press. 345 pp.
Montero, D., Tsukashima, R. 1977. Assimila- Roof, W. C. 1979a. Socioeconomic differention and educational achievement:the case of
tials amongwhite socioreligious groups in
the second generation Japanese-American.
the United States. Soc. Forces 58:280-89
Sociol. Q. 18:490-503
Roof, W. C. 1979b. Race and residence: the
Murguia, E., Frisbie, W. P. 1977. Trends in
shifting basis of Americanrace relations.
Mexican-American intermarriage: recent
Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 441:1-12
findings in perspective. Soc. Sci. Q. 58:374- Rosen, B. C. 1959. Race, ethnicity, and the
89
achievement syndrome. Am. Sociol. Rev.
Myrdal, G. [1944] 1964. An American Dilem24:47-60
ma. NY: McGrawHill. 1330 pp.
Rosenberg. T. J., Lake, R. W. 1976. Towarda
Annual Reviews

422
HIRSCHMAN
revised modelof residential segregation and

succession: Puerto Ricans in NewYork, Am.
J. Sociol. 81:1142-50
Rosenfield, D., Sheehan, D. S., Marcus, M.
M., Stephen, W. G. 1981. Classroom structure and prejudice in desegregated schools.
J. Educ. Psychol. 73:17-26
Schermerhom, R. A. 1970. Comparative
Ethnic Relations: A Frameworkfor Theory
and Research. NY: RandomHouse. 327 pp.
Schnare, A. B. 1980. Trends in residential segregation 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. Serfdomslegacy: an ethnic
continuum. Am. J. Sociol. 81:1265-86
Semyonov, M., Tyree, A. 1981. Community
segregation and the costs of ethnic subordination. Soc. Forces 59:649-66
Shibutani, T., Kwan,K. M. 1965 Ethnic Stratification. NY:Macmillan. 626 pp.
Siegel, P. 1965. Onthe cost of being a Negro.
Sociol. Inq. 35:41-57
Simpson,(3. E. 1968. Assimilation. Inlnternational Encyclopediaof 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 Prejudice and Discrimination. NY: Harper &
Row. 881 pp. 4th ed.
Sklare, M. 1971. Americas Jews. NY:Random House. 234 pp.
Sly, D. F., Pol, L. G. 1978. Demographic
context of school segregation and desegregation. Soc. Forces 56:1072-86
Smith, T. W. 1982. General liberalism and
social change in post WorldWarII America:
a summaryof trends. Soc. Ind. 10:1-28
Sowell, T. 1981. Ethnic America: A History.
NY:Basic Books. 353 pp.
Spain, D. 1979. Racerelations and residential
segregation in NewOrleans: two centuries of
paradox. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci.
441:82-96
Steinberg, S. 1974. The AcademicMelting Pot:
Catholics and Jews in American Higher
Education. NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction. 183 pp.
Steinberg, S. 1981. The Ethnic Myth: Race,
Ethnicity and Class in America. Boston:
Beacon Press. 277 pp.
Stolzenberg, R. M., DAmico,R. J. 1977, City
differences and nondifferences in the effect
of race and sex on occupationaldistribution.
Am. Sociol. Rev. 42:937-50
Stryker, R. 1981. Religio-ethnic effects on
attainments in the early career. Am. Sociol.
Rev. 46:212-31
Synnott, M. G. 1979. Admissionand assimilation 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 Economyof the
Black Ghetto. NY:Norton. 152 pp.
Taeuber, K. E. 1968. The effect of income
redistribution on racial residential segregation. Urb. Aft. Q. 4:5-14
Taeuber, K. E. 1979. Housing, schools and
incremental
effects. Ann. Am.
Acad.
Polit. segregative
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 demographicperspective on school desegregation in the
U.S.A. In Ethnic Segregation in Cities, ed.
c. Peach, V. Robinson, S. Smith, pp. 83105. Athens, GA:Univ. Georgia Press. 258
PP.
Taylor, D. G., Sheatsley; P. B., Greeley, A.
M. 1978.Attitudes towardracial integration.
Sci. Am. 238:42-49
Tienda, M., ed. 1981. Hispanic Origin Workers in the U.S. Labor Market: Comparative
Analyses of Employmentand Earnings. Report 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 Americancase. J.
Soc. lss. 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
USCommissionon 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 andRacism:
A ComparativePerspective. NY:Wiley. 169
PP.
van den Berghe, P. L. 1981. The Ethnic Phenomenon. NY:Elsevier. 301 pp.
VanValey, 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 AmericanCommunities.
Annual Reviews

AMERICAS
EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 434
pp.
Williams, R. M. 1975. Race and ethnic relations. Ann. Rev. Sociol, 1:125-64
Williams, R. M. 1980. Structure and process in
ethnic relations: increased knowledgeand
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. Residential and school segregation: sometests of
their association. In The Demography
of Racial 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 experiences of Cubans in Miami. Am. J.
Sociol. 86:295-319
Wilson, W. J. 1980a. The Declining Significance of Race. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press. 243 pp. 2nd ed.
Wilson, W. J. 1980b. Comparative race and
ethnic relations: issues of theory and research. See Williams 1980, pp. 228-42
Winsberg, M. D. 1979. Housingsegregation of
a predominantlymiddle-class population: re-
MELTING POT
423
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. 25:5978
Woodrum, E. 1981. An assessment
of
Japanese-Americanassimilation, pluralism,
and subordination. Am. J. Sociol. 87:157-69
Wright, E. O. 1978. Race, class and income
inequality. Am. J. Sociol. 83:1368-97
Wurdock,C. 1979. Public school resegregation after desegregation: somepreliminary
findings. Sociol. Focus 12:263-74
Wurdock,C., Farley, R. 1979. School integration and enrollments in the nations 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. Emergentethnicity: a review and reformulation. Am. Sociol Rev. 41:391-403
Yinger, J, M. 1968. A research note on interfaith marriagestatistics. J. Sci. Stud. Rel.
7:97-103
Yinger, J. M. 1981. Towarda theory of assimilation and dissimilation. Ethnic and Racial Stud. 4:249-64
Zangwill, I. 1914. The Melting Pot: Dramain
FourActs. NY:Macmillan. 214 pp. rev. ed-.



Hirschman - Ars Copy 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hirschman - Ars Copy 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Annual Reviews

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Ann.Rev. Sociol. 1983.9.397-423

AMERICAS MELTING POT

Departmentof Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NewYork14853

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Andconsider the candor of HavardPresident Lowell in publicly announcing

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

AMERICAS MELTING POT 399

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

They also suggested a sophisticated version of what later becamelabelled the

Theseideas represent an early formulationof what later becameParks thesis

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

eventual outcomewouldbe one of assimilation, but he emphasizedthe colonial

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

ence of prejudice), behavioral receptional (absence of discrimination),

EVIDENCE ON TRENDS TOWARDASSIMILATION IN

indicators: socioeconomicinequality, segregation in housing and schools,

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Educationis a key indicator of achievementin the socioeconomichierarchy and

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

is toward convergence in the quantity of schooling received. Weknowmuch

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

which van den Berghelabeled as a period ofHerrenvolk dembcracy(1967:77).

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

empirical studies [for an overview, see Roof(1979b); for studies of ethnic

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Van Valey 1979). Presumablypeople whoinhabit the same geographical area

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

clear-cut, but it is substantial enoughto spark concern amongethnic spokesmen

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

ences in the behavioral correlates and determinants of generalized stereotypes

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

assumptionsand expectations of the assimilation framework(except to say that

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

struggle betweenthe established workingclass and the class of newentrants,

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Accordingto this interpretation of the bases for the resurgenceof ethnicity

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

AMERICAS MELTING POT

1970s. In conclusion, however, Americans of African descent have been and

Barth, E. A.T., Noel,D. L. 1972.Conceptual

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

ism: the split labor market. Am. Sociol. Rev.

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

whites from subordination of Negroes. Am.

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Heer, D. M. 1980. Intermarriage. In Harvard

ing pot? intermarriage trends in NewHaven

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

of residential segregationin the assimilation Newman,W. M. 1973. American Pluralism: A

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

revised modelof residential segregation and

Synnott, M. G. 1979. Admissionand assimilation of minority students at Harvard, Yale,

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

sidential patterns developed by the Cuban

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1983.9:397-423. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org

You might also like