1. Social Theories on Social Change, Ethnic & Racial Assimilation
SOC 3300 “Inequality” Dr. Mary Cay Sengstock, Ph.D., C.C.S.

2. 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!

3. 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

4. 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.

5. 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

6. Social Change Pyramid How Long Will It Take? Who Is Most
Control
Leaders
50+
Aspiring Leaders
Maintain Control
25-49
Most Likely Changers
Children, Youth
<25
Who Is Most
Likely to Change?
What Is the Chance
Of Change Occurring?
Who Is Likely to
Resist Change?
Why?

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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”

10. 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)

11. Scores Over Time Social Distance Spread Shrinks:
Negroes (1977) vs. Africans: 1.43
Mean (1997): 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: – Koreans: 2.63

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. Minority Groups Does Not Designate Numerical Representation
Relates to Relative Power & Status in Society
Louis Wirth – Noted 2 Dimensions:
Not Solely Physical; Many Physical, Cultural Traits, Disabilities, Aging, etc.
Social Consciousness; Focus on Prejudice, Discrimination
Richard Schermerhorn Does Not Agree:
Not All Minority Groups Involve Victimization
Leads to Studies of Social Power Relationships

19. 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

20. Theories of Minority Integration: Assimilation
Assumes That Outside Groups Become
Integral Part of Dominant Society – 3 Ways:
Anglo-Conformity
Melting Pot
Pluralism

21. 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)

22. Assimilation: Stages (Milton Gordon)
Cultural Assimilation (Acculturation)
Marital Assimilation (Amalgamation)
Structural Assimilation (Primary & Secondary)
Identificational Assimilation (One Identity)
Attitude-Receptional (Absence of Prejudice)
Behavioral-Receptional (Absence of Discrimination)
Civic Assimilation (Absence of Political Conflicts)

23. 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

24. 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)

25. “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)

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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”

29. 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)

30. 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)