The Place of Cultural Explanations and Historical Specificity in Discussions of Modes of Incorporation and Segmented Assimilation

Labor eJournal Pub Date : 1998-07-01 DOI:10.2139/ssrn.115804
Joel Perlmann
{"title":"The Place of Cultural Explanations and Historical Specificity in Discussions of Modes of Incorporation and Segmented Assimilation","authors":"Joel Perlmann","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.115804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper serves as an opportunity to pull together some thoughts and questions about modes of incorporation as an explanation for ethnic differences in behavior. Specifically, I ask just what is the status of cultural explanations for ethnic behavior if ethnic behavior is approaches from a modes-of-incorporation perspective. I ask this question both in connection with individuals of the immigrant generation as well as in connection with the second generation; the concern with the second generation leads me to consider the status of cultural explanations for ethnic behavior in connection with the related conception of segmented assimilation. My argument proceeds through four steps. (1) I note that the modes are introduced as a way out of being left with a large ethnic residual (or unexplained difference) from individual-level analysis and as one more way of contradicting the claim that the residual reflects the operation of independent cultural differences among groups. (2) I stress how far we can push the corollary that living in different modes can effect not only the structural opportunities available to a person but also the attitudes, values, and outlooks common in people from different groups. (3) I also stress the possibility that many specifics of an immigrant group's historical experiences are not captures by the modes of incorporation (as would be true of any typology), and that such historical specifics ignore by the typology might matter a great deal. Moreover, such historically specific features may involve cultural characteristics as well as other characteristics, cultural characteristics related not at all or only tangentially to the aspects of experience discussed in the typology of the modes. (4) A big question, from this perspective, then, is: how well do the modes in fact explain the residual ethnic differences unexplained by the individual-level variables? And how do we answer that question empirically?","PeriodicalId":114523,"journal":{"name":"Labor eJournal","volume":"50 12","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Labor eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.115804","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This paper serves as an opportunity to pull together some thoughts and questions about modes of incorporation as an explanation for ethnic differences in behavior. Specifically, I ask just what is the status of cultural explanations for ethnic behavior if ethnic behavior is approaches from a modes-of-incorporation perspective. I ask this question both in connection with individuals of the immigrant generation as well as in connection with the second generation; the concern with the second generation leads me to consider the status of cultural explanations for ethnic behavior in connection with the related conception of segmented assimilation. My argument proceeds through four steps. (1) I note that the modes are introduced as a way out of being left with a large ethnic residual (or unexplained difference) from individual-level analysis and as one more way of contradicting the claim that the residual reflects the operation of independent cultural differences among groups. (2) I stress how far we can push the corollary that living in different modes can effect not only the structural opportunities available to a person but also the attitudes, values, and outlooks common in people from different groups. (3) I also stress the possibility that many specifics of an immigrant group's historical experiences are not captures by the modes of incorporation (as would be true of any typology), and that such historical specifics ignore by the typology might matter a great deal. Moreover, such historically specific features may involve cultural characteristics as well as other characteristics, cultural characteristics related not at all or only tangentially to the aspects of experience discussed in the typology of the modes. (4) A big question, from this perspective, then, is: how well do the modes in fact explain the residual ethnic differences unexplained by the individual-level variables? And how do we answer that question empirically?
文化解释和历史特殊性在合并和分段同化模式讨论中的地位
本文提供了一个机会,将有关合并模式的一些想法和问题汇集在一起,以解释种族行为差异。具体来说,我想问的是,如果民族行为是从整合模式的角度出发的,那么民族行为的文化解释的地位是什么。我问这个问题,既与移民一代有关,也与第二代有关;对第二代的关注使我考虑到与分段同化相关概念有关的民族行为的文化解释的地位。我的论证分四个步骤进行。(1)我注意到,引入这些模式是为了避免在个人层面的分析中留下大量的种族残差(或无法解释的差异),也是为了反驳残差反映群体之间独立文化差异运作的说法。(2)我要强调的是,我们可以在多大程度上推动这个推论,即生活在不同的模式下不仅会影响一个人所能获得的结构性机会,还会影响来自不同群体的人所共有的态度、价值观和观点。(3)我还强调这样一种可能性,即移民群体的历史经历的许多细节并没有被融合模式所捕捉(任何类型都是如此),而这些被类型所忽略的历史细节可能非常重要。此外,这些特定于历史的特征可能包括文化特征以及其他特征,这些文化特征与模式类型学中讨论的经验方面完全无关,或者只是切切相关。(4)从这个角度来看,一个很大的问题是:这些模式在多大程度上解释了个体水平变量无法解释的剩余种族差异?我们如何根据经验回答这个问题?
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信