The Sociology of Assimilation

The classic sociology of assimilation holds that immigrants are forced to become more like the majority group over time. This process, known as assimilation, aims to help immigrants become more like the majority group over time, and, in the process, conform to their new culture. But early versions of the theory have been accused of being “Anglo-conformist,” depicting immigrant groups as conforming to middle-class white Protestant values.

Using social network analysis, Gillin identify social and cultural factors that aid assimilation and hinder it. They find that assimilation is facilitated by social connections, including religious affiliation and race, and inhibited by physical or mental distance. In other words, assimilation occurs with social contact, but at different rates. The speed of assimilation depends on the degree of contact with the host group and on the presence of other factors that facilitate assimilation.

Although assimilation studies have been historically centered on race and ethnicity, newer groups have different histories and cultural traditions. Some groups may pull second or third-generation immigrants into criminal activities or disadvantaged communities. Moreover, it is unclear whether assimilation reduces crime. It depends on the part of American culture a group assimilates. In some cases, it can be reversed if the group becomes more like the American majority.

The process of assimilation is the adaptation of a culture to a new culture. In this process, the social attitudes of the new group change. It can take place in primitive societies or more developed societies. In the case of the early migrants, assimilation mechanisms were developed, such as exogamic marriage and a client-client relationship. However, as a society developed, its cultural identity strengthened and automatic media of assimilation became more sophisticated.

The sociology of assimilation studies have become more comparative, as traditional sending countries are becoming immigrant-receiving countries. Non-melting-pot countries may also show clearer distinctions between natives and immigrants. The key question to ask is how government policies can help ease the economic mobility of immigrant groups. If the answer is no, we are in for a long road. If we do, we might be one step closer to a truly democratic society.

The first step in the process of assimilation is to determine how immigrants measure up against their peers. They compare the socioeconomic opportunities of their host countries to those of their origin. The first-generation immigrants may experience assimilation with minimal barriers, while children of higher-income migrants are more likely to show assimilation with little or no discrimination. In the second and third generations, however, these immigrants may begin to develop racial consciousness.

Several theoretical frameworks focus on the classical modes of assimilation, such as the “melting pot” and the “Anglo-Conformity Model.” The latter was less developed, but still consistent with Chicago School depictions of assimilation. Unlike the former, it stressed the process of minority groups acquiring characteristics of the “core” culture. But this model of assimilation was less effective, so Gordon’s contributions are largely ignored.