Understanding Immigrants Assimilation: Classic and Alternative Theories

Researchers, politicians, and the general public have used the concept of assimilation to describe the processes of incorporation of foreign immigrants to a host society. That is, the process in which foreign ethnicities and races negotiate and adapt to a new social environment. This concept, however, is contested. Due to particular historical contexts and the complexity of the process of incorporation and ethnic interaction, assimilation has been conceptualized different by social scientists in the 20th Century. As the U.S. has become more culturally and ethnically diverse, as well as with changes in the economy, researchers have developed theories of assimilation that assume the host society and culture differently and consider specific dimensions of the process. While some researchers have considered the host society as homogenous, others have assumed it as heterogeneous and highly stratified, while some have tried to address multiple dimensions (e.g. socioeconomic, educational, civic, identity, psychology), others have focused only on two dimensions of the process (e.g. culture and economy).

Classic Assimilation and Alternative Assimilation Theories

What is known in the social sciences literature as classic assimilation theory assumed a single and unified U.S culture and society where immigrants became incorporated progressively and inevitably. In “Social Systems of American Ethnic Groups” (1945), W. Lloyd Warer and Leo Strole, argued that the process of assimilation of immigrant minorities to the U.S. consisted in a progressive incorporation to a homogenous Anglo-Protestant American culture and society. At the end of the “straight-line” process, immigrants were supposed to become part of a unified white American middle-class whose culture and society remained unchanged. Likewise, Milton Gordon, in his seminal works “Assimilation in American Life” (1967) and “Human Nature, Class, and Ethnicity” (1978) posited that immigrants in the U.S. gradually assimilated to a white Anglo-Saxon putative mainstream. According to Gordon, immigrant groups conformed to a preexisting and dominant Anglo core, in a multi-step process that started with giving up their cultural patterns and ethnic heritage. After assimilating culturally, immigrants and their children could incorporate to American social groups, assume an American identity, change their attitudes and behaviors, and become engaged in civics. This process took several generations.

Besides describing seven stages of the assimilation process, sociologist Milton Gordon outlined a series of indicators that could be used to quantitatively measure the extent of immigrant’s incorporation to the new society. For instance, variables related to language usage, and celebration of ethnic holidays could measure the degree of cultural assimilation; variables related to the ethnic composition of social ties could measure the degree of structural assimilation; and variables related to ethnic self-image could indicate the degree of identificational assimilation. In another attempt to quantify the immigrant assimilation process in the U.S., Peter Blay and Otis Dudley Duncan (1967) focused on the socioeconomic aspect of the process and considered variables related to status attainment, occupation, income, and education. According to them, the assimilation process could be measured by the social mobility that immigrant minorities had in the new society and their participation in socioeconomic institutions. (e.g. labor market, education).

Although classic assimilation studies described the process of immigrant adaptation, identified different dimensions, and operationalized several indicators to measure the extent of incorporation of individuals and groups to the U.S., their theories were often ethnocentric and idealized conformity to a homogeneous white Anglo middle-class culture and society. Given the racial and ethnic characteristics of the European migration that took place at the turn of the 20th century, as well as the historical and economical context of massive industrialization, a “straight-line” process of incorporation into a core white Anglo mainstream seemed to describe the experience of many of the white European immigrants and their children in the U.S. However, as the immigrant population became more ethnically and racially diverse after the new wave of massive immigration post-1965, and as the economic context changed entering a post-industrial era, such assumptions of Anglo conformity and assimilation to a unified white middle-class could not accurately describe the uneven experiences of the “new immigrants” and their children in the U.S.

Segmented Assimilation

In order to better understand the variety of outcomes and complexity of the assimilation process in contemporary U.S. stratified post-industrial context, researchers developed alternative theories to the classic assimilation. Making a paradigm shift, sociologist Alejandro Portes and his collaborators outlined the theory of segmented assimilation in the 1990s. They posited that the assimilation process of the “new immigrants” (post-1965 immigrants and their children) was not longer a positive “straight-line” trajectory in which they gradually integrated to the mainstream white American middle class, in the process, loosing their ethnic culture and values, and gaining equal access to economic opportunity. In contrast, in the present context of persistent racial discrimination, bifurcation of the labor market (hourglass economy), and inner city marginalized populations, the “new immigrants” follow divergent pathways and assimilate to different segments of the society. (Portes & Zhou 1993; Rumbaut 1996; Bankston & Zhou 1997; Zhou 1997; Gibson 1998; Portes & Rumbaut 2001). While some assimilate and move upward to the middle-class, others are poorly assimilated and move downward to the marginalized and racialized bottom of society.

According to the segmented assimilation framework the outcomes of the incorporation process are not always positive, but mixed, and they depend on both structural and individual factors and the interaction between them. (Portes & Zhou 1993; Rumbaut 1996; Zhou 1997; Portes & Rumbaut 2001) Structural characteristics of the social contexts immigrants enter such as color (racial-ethnic stratification), location (spatial segregation), and access to mobility layers (economic opportunities) interact with individual-level factors such as parental resources (human, financial, cultural capitals), education, and values, shaping diverse pathways to downward or upward assimilation. (Rumbaut 1996; Rumbaut & Cornelius 1995; Zhou, M. & Bankston, C. 1998; Portes & Rumbaut 2001; Portes et al., 2005) Trajectories of immigrant youth assimilation depend not only on the segments of the society where their parents are incorporated and the resources that their parents bring along, but also on how youth navigate the advantages and disadvantages of their family background and how they construct their ethnic and cultural identities in the new country.