-
7. Interethnic Relations
- Russell Sage Foundation
- Chapter
- Additional Information
158 Chapter 7 Interethnic Relations R esidential segregation and intermarriage have become primary indicators of the extent of social distance between race and ethnic groups. High levels of residential segregation and low levels of intermarriage mean that boundaries between groups are rigid, implying social isolation as well as high intragroup social cohesion. Under the traditional assimilation theory, residential segregation declines and intermarriage increases over time or over generations-since-immigration, a pattern commonly supported in empirically based studies.1 In Gordon’s formulation, the development of such primary group affiliations between ethnic groups, which he referred to as structural assimilation, “naturally” leads to assimilation on all other dimensions. Lower residential segregation and greater intermarriage are signs of greater acceptance and are expected to lead to interethnic interaction on many other levels, further breaking down ethnic or racial boundaries. For Mexican Americans, and Latinos generally, residential segregation and intermarriage with whites has been moderate. Segregation is higher than the low (though highly fluid) level between white ethnics and WASPs, on the one hand, but lower than the near-apartheid separation between whites and African Americans, on the other. Residential segregation between Latinos and whites has increased since 1970, but this appears driven by immigration, in that places with high proportions of Latino immigrants are the most segregated.2 Intermarriage between Mexican Americans and whites increased steadily from the 1950s to 1980.3 Based on the 1965 survey, Grebler, Moore, and Guzmán note: The options for Mexican Americans for social interaction and personal association with the outgroup have been enlarging over time. Progressive urbanization and movement into middle class status and out of the barrios into less-segregated neighborhoods have been important factors in this process. Also, the younger people seem to have more opportunity for developing relations with the dominant group than the older generation, or they have been more willing to seize the opportunity or both.4 Thus, the original survey found incipient social interaction with the dominant European Americans, a growing trend marked by greater exposure among the younger cohorts and growing social mobility. The authors attributed this limited integration to large-scale structural change, particularly in the form of urbanization and growing economic opportunities, though they noticed “reticence” among some Mexican Americans to move toward more integrated settings. Trends in the social interaction of ethnic groups with dominant group members have been a central concern of American sociology. Since at least the 1930s, sociologists have documented that immigrants generally arrived to ethnic “ports of entry” in urban areas and rarely ventured beyond the ethnic community. The longer they lived in the United States, the more likely they were to increase contacts with non-ethnics, including members of the majority group. For the children and grandchildren of immigrants, interaction with coethnics became the exception as they melded into general American society. At least for the descendants of European immigrants, this has been the common pattern, which social scientists have largely discovered by examining marriage and residential patterns. These social dynamics are often referred to as marital and spatial assimilation.5 Available evidence for intermarriage and residential segregation suggests that Mexican immigrants and their descendants follow a similar pattern , though perhaps at a slower rate than other ethnic groups. In places like Los Angeles in 2000 and San Antonio in 1970 and 2000, greater delays might be expected, given the large size of the Mexican origin population in both places. Because Mexican Americans are such a large population in the two urban areas, their exposure to non-Hispanics may be especially limited, which further limits the formation of interethnic friendships and intermarriage. A large portion of each metropolitan area is composed of barrios (neighborhoods) that are mostly Mexican or Hispanic. Even with socioeconomic mobility and movement to suburbs, in both metro areas, many Mexican Americans often remain residentially segregated, and may be the majority in even lower middle class suburbs. Segregation and limited intermarriage are the result of both the relative size of the group, social preferences and behavioral patterns of majority and minority group members. The relative size of groups limits the opportunities for interaction between two groups. For example, Mexican Americans in the 1960s were about half of the population in San Antonio but only 10 percent in Los Angeles. That may largely explain why San Antonio Mexican Americans intermarried less often and were more residentially isolated. Also, ethnic group members may decide to “be among their own” as they seek to live near ethnic institutions such...