Cultural and structural assimilation
Cultural and structural assimilation are two key concepts in understanding how minority groups integrate into a society. Cultural assimilation, often referred to as acculturation, involves changes in cultural patterns of the minority group to align with those of the dominant group. This process often necessitates adaptations to the cultural norms and values of the majority society. On the other hand, structural assimilation refers to the involvement of minority groups in the social structures and institutions of the dominant society, such as clubs, organizations, and social relationships, ultimately fostering primary connections with the core group.
The concept of total assimilation suggests that successful integration leads to a society where cultural differences are minimized, and individuals from minority backgrounds are indistinguishable from the dominant group. This multifaceted process can involve several stages, including intermarriage and the diminishing of prejudice. Historical and contemporary contexts demonstrate that while some groups may navigate this process more quickly than others, factors such as discrimination and social isolation can impede assimilation.
In recent years, the dynamics of assimilation have evolved, influenced by changing demographics and political landscapes. As various immigrant groups become acculturated, shifts in cultural and political affiliations can arise, reflecting broader trends in societal integration. Understanding these processes highlights the complexities of social relations and the ongoing debate about the balance between maintaining distinct cultural identities and pursuing a unified societal framework.
Cultural and structural assimilation
SIGNIFICANCE: Sociologist Milton Gordon made a major contribution to assimilationist theory by clearly distinguishing two types of assimilationcultural assimilation, sometimes referred to as acculturation, and structural assimilation, which refers to the integration of minority groups into all aspects of social life.
According to Milton Gordon in Assimilation in American Life (1964), the study of how groups are incorporated into American society has been plagued by two major problems. First, the American legal system does not distinguish groups on the basis of race, religion, or nationality. Instead, all individuals are simply considered Americans. In contrast, Gordon says, the social reality is that there are distinct subgroups in American society, organized and identified on the basis of race, religion, and nationality. Because the legal system ignores this, the reality is hidden.
The second problem that Gordon defined is the manner in which the social sciences have dealt with the reality of diversity in American life. Gordon claimed that social scientists before him focused primarily on the cultural behavior of individuals and groups and the extent to which various ethnic racial groups had adopted the values and behavior of the dominant group in society—in this case, Anglo-Americans. They also focused on studying the attitudes of the dominant group, examining the extent and basis of racial prejudice. This was problematic, according to Gordon, because it ignored the issue of how so many diverse groups are incorporated into the social structure. Furthermore, neither social scientists nor policymakers had made clear what the goals of assimilation were. It is uncertain whether the United States would like to see total assimilation into one culture—a “melting pot” composed of a blend of cultures—or whether groups should maintain distinct cultures, a view sometimes referred to as cultural pluralism. To Gordon, the major question was what was the impact of racial, religious, and national diversity on social relations and social institutions in a democratic industrial society such as the United States? To answer this question, Gordon argued, sociologists must clearly define assimilation and the various types of outcomes that might emerge from intergroup contact. Consideration of both cultural issues and the social structure must be included.
Gordon was the first to distinguish assimilation from acculturation and to propose two distinct types of assimilation: cultural assimilationacculturationand structural assimilation. Generally, acculturation requires a change of culture on the part of the out-group in order to adapt to the dominant group. Structural assimilation requires that the out-group enter into the clubs, groups, and social institutions of the core group, thereby establishing primary relationships with individuals in the core. Ultimately, total assimilation implies that there are no cultural differences and that out-groups can no longer be distinguished from anyone else.
Seven Steps of Assimilation
Gordon defines total assimilation as a process that may require seven steps toward its ultimate conclusion, the blended society. Step one is acculturation, in which an ethnic group changes its cultural patterns to those of the core group, also referred to as Anglo-conformity. Step two is structural assimilation, in which the out-group establishes primary relations with the core group and enters the social structure of the core. The third step is marital assimilation, in which the out-group intermarries with members of the core and produces children. Step four is identification assimilation, in which ethnic groups identify with the core instead of their ancestral ethnic group. The fifth step is attitude-receptional assimilation, in which the core is no longer prejudiced against members of the out-group. Step six is behavior-receptional assimilation, in which the core stops discriminating against members of the out-group, and step seven is civic assimilation, in which the out-group has no value conflicts with the core group over governance.
According to Gordon, although acculturation is likely to be the first step, it may take place without leading to the other steps toward total assimilation. A group may acculturate itself to the norms of the dominant group without that acculturation being followed by any further acceptance or integration for a prolonged period of time. In other words, a group’s successful acculturation neither guarantees its entry into the subsociety of the core nor guarantees that the core group will stop being prejudiced toward them or discriminating against them. Thus, the process of total assimilation requires cooperation from both sides: the entering group must adapt itself to the core group, and the core group must come to accept the entering group and treat its members on the basis of their individual merit rather than on the basis of their ethnic, religious, or national heritage.
Anglo-Conformity
Gordon applied his seven-stage theory of assimilation to an analysis of several diverse ethnic, religious, and racial groups in American society to examine variations in the assimilation process. Generally, he believed that the mode of acculturation in the United States is one of Anglo-conformity. In other words, if groups are to be considered acculturated, they must conform to the behavioral patterns and norms of those whose ancestors migrated from England. In fact, Gordon believed that Anglo-conformity had largely been achieved in terms of acculturation. He said that acculturation was very successful with the children of immigrants because of their immediate contact with public schools and the mass media. When acculturation was weak, as in the case of American Indians and African Americans, he claimed that factors existed that retarded the process of acculturation for these groups—that acculturation was still happening, but at a slower pace. In the case of American Indians, their ongoing ethnic identification with ancestral tradition, coupled with their isolation on reservations and special status as sovereign nations, mitigated against acculturation. Gordon said that for African Americans in the rural South, slavery and the long years of exploitation and discrimination that followed had led to the development of a subculture whose behaviors and values were so distant from Anglo culture that prejudice and discrimination remained intense. For those African Americans who migrated to urban industrial centers, acculturation was also retarded because of prejudice and discrimination.
Generally, however, despite some groups moving more slowly through the assimilation process than others, Gordon maintained the belief that assimilation would eventually occur. To the extent that he saw the development of a black middle class, he saw barriers breaking down, providing evidence that discrimination would have only a delaying effect on assimilation.
Education and Desegregation
Contemporary applications of Gordon’s theory have diverged, in part, from the earlier ideological concepts that called for Anglo-conformity. This can be seen particularly in the area of education. Curriculum reform has been directed toward multicultural education and its goal of appreciating diversity. Many educators argue that when individuals come to appreciate the contributions that various ethnic, racial, and religious groups have made to American society, they will come to appreciate and identify with one another. This is seen as an important step toward ending prejudice and discrimination. At the same time, however, many educators stress that it is important for immigrant children to learn English. Gordon acknowledged this as an important step toward acculturation on the basis of Anglo-conformity.
School desegregation programs also can be interpreted as applications of Gordon’s concepts of acculturation and structural assimilation. Many, though not all, social scientists argue that when children of different racial and ethnic backgrounds can go to school together, play sports together, and know one another intimately, they will grow up without prejudice and discrimination. Furthermore, school desegregation programs are expected to break down the isolation of groups. Residence has remained distinctly organized around race and ethnicity. School busing programs, many of which were instituted in the 1970s and 1980s, promoted desegregation and structural assimilation by forcing children across the boundaries of their racial or ethnic communities. In many cases, these programs have operated without the support or cooperation of the core subsociety—Anglo-Americans.
Assimilation in the Twenty-First Century
The history of immigration to the United States showed different demographics had predominantly arrived in America during widespread eras. Earlier arriving racial groups would demonstrate patterns of assimilation before those demographics that followed. For example, the largest immigrant population in the American Midwest in the 1920s were from Germany. The largest immigrant group in California during the same period was from Italy. These immigration patterns were cyclical and by the second half of the twentieth century the predominant number of immigrants to the United States had changed to come from Mexico. The arrival of Mexican immigrants occurred as those from Europe had become structurally assimilated Americans. By the 2020s, generations of Mexican immigrants had settled in the United States and had become acculturated into American society. This assimilation began to show in unprecedented ways. For example, something many Americans would have previously considered a political unlikelihood began to occur on a frequent basis. This was for voters of Mexican descent to increasingly be drawn to the Republican Party. Many had associated larger percentages of Latinos in locations such as Texas with the ascendancy of the Democratic Party in the state. Areas with majority Latino populations had historically been Democratic Party strongholds. This historical norm was upended in the 2024 US Presidential elections. Republican candidate Donald Trump garnered unprecedented support among Mexican-American voters in Texas on the way to winning the general election.
Bibliography
Alba, Richard, and Victor Nee. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Harvard University Press, 2003.
Blanco, Adrian. "4.1 Million Migrants: Where They’re from, Where They Live in the U.S." Washington Post, 26 June 2024, www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/interactive/2024/us-immigration-where-migrants-live/. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.
Blauner, Robert. Racial Oppression in America. Harper, 1972.
Conchas, Gilberto Q., Michael A. Gottfried, and Briana M. Hinga, eds. Inequality, Power and School Success: Case Studies on Racial Disparity and Opportunity in Education. Routledge, 2015.
Frey, William. “New 2020 Census Data Shows an Aging America and Wide Racial Gaps Between Generations.” Brookings, 1 Aug. 2023, www.brookings.edu/articles/new-2020-census-data-shows-an-aging-america-and-wide-racial-gaps-between-generations. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.
Gordon, Milton M. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. Oxford University Press, 1964.
Leon-Guerrero, Anna. Social Problems: Community, Policy, and Social Action. 4th ed. Sage, 2014.
Moslimani, Muhamad, and Jeffrey S. Passel. “What the Data Says about Immigrants in the U.S.” Pew Research Center, 22 July 2024, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/key-findings-about-us-immigrants. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.
Passel Jeffrey S., et al. “How the Origins of America’s Immigrants Have Changed since 1850.” Pew Research Center, 22 July 2024, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/how-the-origins-of-americas-immigrants-have-changed-since-1850. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.
Scherer, Jasper, et al. "Trump’s Near Sweep of Texas Border Counties Shows a Shift to the Right for Latino Voters." The Texas Tribune, 6 Nov. 2024, www.texastribune.org/2024/11/06/donald-trump-near-sweep-texas-border-counties. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.
Wellman, David T. Portraits of White Racism. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 1993.
"Where Do US Immigrants Come From?" USA Facts, 12 Aug. 2024, usafacts.org/articles/where-do-us-immigrants-come-from. Accessed 7 Nov. 2024.