Pawan Dhingra - Asian America

According to assimilation theorists, this integration is possible because race matters less today than in the past, as evidenced by the numerous legal protections against discrimination and the general improvement in racial attitudes (Alba and Nee 2003). So, according to assimilation theory, the labor market, schools, restaurants, and other spaces do not treat immigrants differently because of their ethnic origin, which enables Asian Americans to become a full part of the nation. Under these conditions, the main (not only) obstacle preventing assimilation, according to those who adopt the assimilation framework, is groups’ own lack of effort or interest to culturally and structurally assimilate.

Assimilation into the host society originally was framed as not only inevitable but also prescriptive (Kivisto 2005). In other words, those who adopted an assimilation standpoint believed that immigrants should gradually abandon parochial interests, like their ethnicity, and embrace the modern American lifestyle in which people supposedly are judged based on their accomplished categories, such as education level, occupational status, marital status, and so on. Assimilation theory assumes a mostly meritocratic United States. Such an adaptation was seen as in the best interests of the immigrant group in the nation. Today, assimilation theorists have dropped the moralistic tone. Still, there is an implied belief in the benefits of assimilation for immigrants.

Other scholars, however, disagree with both the likelihood and benefits of straight cultural and structural assimilation for ethnic minorities. Instead, immigrants can follow different trajectories based on their “mode of incorporation” into the country (Portes and Rumbaut 2006). According to this approach, immigrant groups encounter a segmented assimilation, that is, they can assimilate into different segments of society beyond simply the white middle class assumed within assimilation theory (Portes and Zhou 1993). For instance, immigrants may live in inner cities with poorer African Americans or Latinxs as neighbors than middle-class whites. According to these theorists, it may be to an immigrant group’s advantage not to assimilate if the local group they would assimilate into does not often advance within school or in the labor market. Instead, groups might benefit from maintaining their ethnicity. Relying on group members’ assistance, values, and employment opportunities can facilitate children’s success within institutions like education, the labor market, and more (Gibson 1988; Waters 1999; Zhou and Bankston 1998). Maintaining transnational ties to one’s homeland can also help groups adjust to their local surroundings (Smith 2006). Otherwise, groups could be at risk of a “downward” trajectory (Gans 1992).

Despite its differences from standard assimilation theory, this emphasis on groups’ possible diverse outcomes based on their physical location and group assets fits assimilation theory in that it expects an ethnic groups’ gradual “incorporation” into the host society. As Portes and his co-authors write about the second generation, “the central question is not whether the second generation will assimilate to American society, but to what segment of that society it will assimilate” (Portes, Fernandez-Kelly, and Haller 2005: 1000). There are few, if any, entrenched barriers, such as racism, that cannot be overcome with the right resources (e.g. community oversight, educational support) within this perspective.

In addition to downplaying race as a pervasive constraint on minorities, these various assimilation paradigms stress the significance of culture in determining economic and social outcomes. Over time, immigrants who culturally assimilate akin to previous European immigrants are expected to become economically stable. They may hold onto certain cultural elements, such as traditional foods on special occasions, but these become mostly “symbolic” and ceremonial, rather than influential on people’s lives (Alba 1990; Waters 1990).

According to these first two theoretical perspectives, groups gradually become more like their host society along key dimensions, including educational attainment, residential location, language preference, self-identity, marital partner, and so on. If poor immigrants have access to supportive co-ethnics (i.e. people who share their ethnic background) and do not encounter too many obstacles (e.g. discrimination), they too can achieve mobility. The major difference between the theories is that segmented assimilation stresses that the road to economic stability often drives through strong ties to one’s ethnic group, whereas standard assimilation stresses the benefits of letting go of these ties. And as articulated within segmented assimilation theory, without sufficient support from co-ethnics, the second generation may assimilate in a downward fashion, marked by limited mobility (Portes and Rumbaut 2001).

In contrast to these assimilationist perspectives, other sociologists and those in Ethnic Studies highlight the significance of race and inequality facing ethnic minorities. The racial formation perspective argues that race is fundamental to how society is organized and so continues to matter for minorities even if they are economically secure (Delgado and Stefancic 2001; Omi and Winant 1994). Whites gain materially and psychologically in all sorts of ways, such as when attaining a mortgage or paying for a car, at the expense of minorities (Lipsitz 1998). Racial formation theory draws attention to how minorities are racialized, that is, how they are socially defined and treated as racial groups rather than as individuals. This racialization changes with historical and contextual circumstances in ways that often benefit the state and corporate interests. As the United States engages in empire building, whether through settler colonialism (e.g. against Native Americans and in Hawaii) or overseas in Asia (e.g. during the Cold War or the “war on terror”), immigrants become racialized in positive or negative ways so as to further those national ambitions (Karuka 2019; Kosasa 2000; Selod 2018).

More broadly, the way groups are framed suits the white dominant establishment (e.g. government, the military, corporations). For instance, Chinese Americans went from “good” minorities during World War II to “bad” minorities post World War II as China became increasingly communist and seemed a threat to the government. Japanese Americans switched from “bad” to “good” during this same time period. Our everyday interactions also reflect the power of race. We may talk to someone or even shake the person’s hands differently, based on her/his race. Multiracial individuals may feel pressured to identify with one of their racial backgrounds over the other so as to conform to singular categories.

Racism is allowed to continue because racial ideologies make it socially permissible. For instance, even an ideology of “color-blindness,” which seems to downplay the relevance of race, limits minorities (Bonilla-Silva 2003; Omi and Winant 1994). It suggests that we should be “blind” to race, should ignore it, and that the real problem is those who keep talking about it as well as programs like affirmative action. So, minorities who complain about racism become blamed for perpetuating racial differences. Indeed, some might suggest that since the United States has elected the first African-American president that it has truly achieved a post-racial, color-blind society. However, sociologists and other scholarly critics point out that even with his election, race continued to organize American life and cannot be ignored (Okamura 2011). The election of Donald Trump immediately following that of Barak Obama suggests that racial progress is not a linear trajectory and, instead, entails significant pushback. Hate crimes in 2019 were at a sixteen-year high, even before the backlash from COVID-19 and the xenophobic rhetoric from political leaders. 5