Social Theories on Social Change,
Ethnic & Racial Assimilation
SOC 3300 “Inequality”
Dr. Mary Cay Sengstock, Ph.D., C.C.S.
http://users.wowway.com/~marycay910
Inevitability of Social/Cultural Change
• Cultural Diffusion: “100% American” (Ralph Linton)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Wakes on a Mid-Eastern Style Bed Modified in N. Europe
Puts On Clothes of Silk from China
Woven in Style Devised in Middle East
Looks Out a Window, Invented in Egypt
Eats an Egg from Bird Domesticated in Indo-China
& a Waffle, Cooked in a Scandinavian Iron …
Made From Wheat Domesticated in Asia Minor
Smokes (Amer. Indian Habit) Tobacco Invented in Brazil
In Form of a Cigarette Invented in Mexico
Thanks a Hebrew God, in Indo-European Language …
That He Is 100% American!
Theories of Cultural Change
• Some Basic Concepts & Theories:
– Symbolic Interaction: All Human Interaction Is
Mediated By Symbols: Language, Other Cultural
Symbols (Gestures, Facial Expressions, etc.)
– Cannot Communicate Without Understanding
Others’ Words, Views, Perspectives
• EX: Different Racial & Ethnic Groups
Impact of Social/Cultural Expectations
“W.I. Thomas Theorem”: If Things Are Believed to
Be True, They Are True in Their Consequences.”
•
•
•
•
•
We Accept the Assumptions of Our Society …
Then Act As Though This Is Reality
EX: If People Believe Blacks Inferior …
Then Give Them Less Opportunity …
The Expectation Will Come True.
Social Change – Its Rapidity
• Changes in Society Take Place Very Slowly
• Do NOT Expect Change to Occur Quickly
• Why?
– There Are Many Aspects of Society Pressing for
Continuation of the Status Quo:
• Parents, Other Family
• Schools, Religion, Government
– EX: Attempt to Change Image of Girls, Women in
Grade School Textbooks
Social Change Pyramid
How Long Will It Take?
Control
Who Is Most
Likely to Change?
Who Is Likely to
Resist Change?
Leaders
50+
Aspiring Leaders
Maintain Control
25-49
Children, Youth
Most Likely Changers
<25
What Is the Chance
Of Change Occurring?
Why?
Cultural Contact & Culture Shock
• Cultural Contact – May Occur:
– When One Goes to a Different Society (Immigrant)
– Between Sub-groups in a Single Society
• What Happens When Inter-Cultural Contact
Occurs?
• Cultural Shock As a Consequence of Cultural
Contact
The “Stranger,” Social Change,
& Social Distance
• “Strangers” – A Frequent Source of Change
• All Societies: A “Special Place” for Strangers
– Tiwi – North Australia: Kill Them
– Middle East: Strangers Owed Hospitality
– Lowered Swords As Tribes Enter Foreign Territories
• Similarity Attracts – Difference Repels
• Social Distance: Distrust of Those Different
• Diverse Societies Social Distance Problems
Impact of Cultural Contact
& Culture Shock
• Who Wins?
– Outside Group May Dominate (English Colonists)
– Equal Contact  Assimilate (French in N. Amer.)
– Receiving Group Dominates (Immigrants Today)
• Culture Shock
– Not Easy to Adapt to a New Culture
– Many Immigrants Are Always “Between Cultures”
Bogardus Social Distance Scale
Higher Score = Less Acceptable (1926)
• Long Standing Measure of Perceived Distance
– Accept Marriage into Family (1 pt)
– Accept as Personal Friend (2 pts)
– Accept as Neighbor (3 pts)
– Accept Worker in Office (4 pts)
– Only as Speaking Acquaintance (5 pts)
– Accept Only As Visitor to Country (6 pts)
– Bar from Entering Country (7 pts)
Scores Over Time
• Social Distance Spread Shrinks:
– Negroes (1977) 2.03 vs. Africans: 1.43
– Mean (1997): 1.93 vs. Mean (2001): 1.44
• 2001: Muslims (1.88), Arabs (1.94) Least
Acceptable vs. “American” (1.25)
• Remarkably: Their Scores Are NOT as Negative
As That of Previous “Unacceptables” (1977):
– Russians: 2.57 – Koreans: 2.63
Georg Simmel: the Stranger
•
•
•
•
An “Outsider”: Different; Unknown
Represent Both Nearness & Remoteness
Physically Close –Seen as Unknown/Different
Strangers Are Both Inside & Outside:
– Lack Knowledge of Social “Nuances”
– More Likely to Be “Objective”
• Tendency to Use Stereotypes with Strangers
– Need to Teach People to Get Along with Strangers
– Parrillo: Train Germans to Interact with Americans
Alfred Schutz:
“Intersubjective Understanding
• “Natives”: Shared Understanding of World:
– Language, Slang, Customs, Beliefs, Symbols, Daily
Behavior Patterns – “Social Context”
– Deep Understanding of Hidden Meanings
• Strangers Lack “Historicity,” “Shared Memory”
– Chinese Student: Wanted to Conduct a Subjective
Study of American Students – Possible?
– Dr. Arifa Javed: Cross-Cultural Training Program:
Parents – Students – Teachers
Process of Acculturation
• Over Time, Strangers Come to Know “the
Culture” – the Nuances of Social Interaction
• Deep Understanding/Speaking the Language
• They Now Understand How Others Feel, What
They Say – Hidden Meanings Behind Words
• Natives Begin to Understand the Complexity
of the “Strangers’ Culture” – Less Likely to
Depend Upon Stereotypes
Major Sociological Perspectives:
Functionalism
(Talcott Parsons, Robert Merton)
•
•
•
•
•
Stable, Cooperating System; Everyone Agrees
Everything Has an Accepted Function
System Is Ordered, Stable, in Equilibrium
Temporary Maladjustments “Dysfunctions”
Gradual Adjustments  New Equilibrium
Major Sociological Perspectives:
Conflict Theory
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Disagreements, Tensions Inherent In Society
Conflict Is Inevitable As New Elites Arise
Inequalities Are Inevitable 
Disequilibrium, Change Are the Norm
Exploitation  Discrimination
Power Structure Has False Consciousness
Only Group Cohesiveness & Struggle Produces
Social Change
Major Sociological Perspectives:
Interactionist Theory
•
•
•
•
•
•
Focus: Microsocial World Interaction Patterns
Shared Symbols, Definitions, Interpretations
Social Construction of Reality
Internalized Meanings Are Presumed
Intergroup Relations Perceived in that Context
Improved Communication Needed to Improve
Relations Between Majority & Minority
Minority Groups
• Does Not Designate Numerical Representation
• Relates to Relative Power & Status in Society
• Louis Wirth – Noted 2 Dimensions:
1. Not Solely Physical; Many Physical, Cultural Traits,
Disabilities, Aging, etc.
2. Social Consciousness; Focus on Prejudice, Discrimination
•
Richard Schermerhorn Does Not Agree:
• Not All Minority Groups Involve Victimization
• Leads to Studies of Social Power Relationships
Minority Group Definition
•
•
•
•
•
•
Group Receives Unequal Treatment
Easily Identifiable (Physical &/or Cultural)
Held in Low Esteem
Group Feels Sense of Sharing, Peoplehood
Membership Is ASCRIBED Status; Born Into It
Endogamy Is Practiced
Theories of Minority Integration:
Assimilation
Assumes That Outside Groups Become
Integral Part of Dominant Society – 3 Ways:
Anglo-Conformity
Melting Pot
Pluralism
Assimilation: Definition (Milton Gordon)
• Process In Which 2 Groups Become One
Group
• EX: 2 Immigrant Groups Which Live Near Each
Other …
• Interact With Each Other …
• Eventually They Become 1 Group
• Ethnic EX: Development of “WASP” (Anderson)
• How the Jews Became “White” (Brodkin #4)
Assimilation: Stages (Milton Gordon)
7 Stages:
1. Cultural Assimilation (Acculturation)
2. Marital Assimilation (Amalgamation)
3. Structural Assimilation (Primary & Secondary)
4. Identificational Assimilation (One Identity)
5. Attitude-Receptional (Absence of Prejudice)
6. Behavioral-Receptional (Absence of Discrimination)
7. Civic Assimilation (Absence of Political Conflicts)
Gordon’s Hypotheses
• Cultural Assimilation is Necessary for the Rest
• Structural Assimilation Will Lead to the Rest
• Marital Assimilation  Process Complete
•
•
•
•
None Proven – Questioned By Many Theorists
Shows the Complexity of Assimilation
Question Re Who Assimilates to Whom
Question Re Degree to Which It Really Occurs
Anglo-Conformity
• Based on Assimilation
• Assumes That All Incoming Groups Become
Like the Original Group (i.e, “Anglos)
• Advocated By Anglos
• Question If It Ever Really Occurs
• Reality: Newcomers Really Change Most
• Newcomers Do Introduce Some New Ideas
– Some Ideas (EX: Civil Rights Movement)
– Even If It’s Just Their Foods; Some Words (Yiddish)
“Melting Pot”
• Assumes ALL Groups Meld Into A New Group
• Different from ALL of the Individual Groups
– “New Breed” (J. Hector St. John de Creveceour, 1782)
– “The Melting Pot” (Israel Zangwill, Play, 1908)
Q: Did We Melt?
• Gordon: Only In Religion
• “Triple Melting Pot”
– Protestant
– Catholic
– Jewish
– (Ruby Jo Reeves Kennedy, New Haven, CN)
• Did This Even Occur There?
– Andrew Greeley
Melting Pot Today
• Who Would We Have to Include Today?
• Muslims? Hindus? Sikhs? Others?
• The Dominant Society Does NOT – Has NO
INTENTION OF Accommodating/Assimilating!
• Most “Melting” Was Anglo-Conformist
– Will Herberg; Henry Pratt Fairchild; Andrew
Greeley; others
Accommodation Theory:
Pluralism
• “Democracy vs. Melting Pot” Horace Kallen (1915)
• Rejects Assimilation & Amalgamation
• Groups Retain Language, Customs ,
Institutions
• Learn English, Participate in Institutions
– Occupations, Education, Politics
• U.S: “Cooperation of Cultural Diversities”
Pluralism a Cultural Reality
• Cultural Pluralism:
– Some Culturally Distinct Groups Exist (Amish)
• Structural Pluralism
– Many Groups Form Separate Social Groups
• Dual Realities: Both Types Always Existed
– Groups Maintain Social/(Cultural) Separateness
– Assimilation Required By Whites
• Reality: “Whites” Are Not “Just American”!
– Strata; Self Control; Suppress Attitudes (Parrillo)
Reactions to Pluralism
• Comparison to Other Societies
– Canada: State Sponsored Multi-Culturalism
– Australia: “White Australia”  2-Way
Acculturation  U.S. Style Diversity
– Trinidad & Tobago: “Tossed Salad”
• East Indians Always “Outsiders” to Africans
– France: Mono-Cultural – Everyone Is Native-Born!
– U.S.: Mixture of Above
• Generally Non-Interference Unless Problems
– Bothers Many White Anglo-Saxon Protestants!
• Richard Thompson: Unity, Not Diversity! (Hate Speech)