DQW5

9 Diversity: Today and Tomorrow

 Listen to  Chapter 9  on MySocLab

· 9-1 Explain the current idea of Post-Racialism.

· 9-2 Identify the present state of racial and ethnic diversity in the United States.

· 9-3 Discuss the origin and characteristics of the model minority image.

· 9-4 Address the concepts of “acting White” and “acting Black.”

· 9-5 Examine the significance of social and cultural capital for minorities.

· 9-6 Summarize the frequency of cross-race, interethnic contact.

What metaphor do we use to describe a nation whose racial, ethnic, and religious minorities are becoming numerical majorities in cities coast to coast, as already seen in the California, Hawaii, New Mexico, Texas, and about one-tenth of all counties in the United States? By one scholarly analysis, Houston, not New York City or Miami, was found to be statistically the most racially diverse metropolitan area in the United States in 2012. The outpouring of statistical data and personal experience documents the racial and ethnic diversity of the entire nation. The mosaic might not be the same in different regions and communities; the tapestry of racial and ethnic groups is always close at hand wherever one is in the United States (Emerson, Brattner, Howell, Jeanty, and Cline  2012 ; Humes, Jones, and Ramirez  2011 ).

E Pluribus Unum, meaning “out of many, one” was adopted as the key phrase on the national seal approved in an Act of Congress in 1782. Although E Pluribus Unum may be reassuring to the diverse peoples of the United States, it does not describe what a visitor sees along the length of Fifth Avenue in Manhattan or in Monterey Park outside Los Angeles. It is apparent in the increasing numbers of Latinos in the rural river town of Beardstown, Illinois, and the emerging Somali immigrant population in Lewiston, Maine.

For several generations, the melting pot has been used as a convenient description of our culturally diverse nation. The analogy of an alchemist’s cauldron was clever, even if a bit jingoistic; in the Middle Ages, the alchemist attempted to change less costly metals into gold and silver.

The phrase melting pot originated as the title of a 1908 play by Israel Zangwill. In the play, a young Russian Jewish immigrant to the United States composes a symphony that portrays a nation that serves as a crucible (or pot) where all ethnic and racial groups dissolve into a new, superior stock.

The belief that the United States was a melting pot became widespread in the first part of the twentieth century, particularly because it suggested that the United States had an almost divinely inspired mission to destroy artificial divisions and create a single humankind. However, the dominant group had indicated its unwillingness to welcome Native Americans, African Americans, Hispanics, Jews, and Asians, among many others, into the melting pot.

 Read the Document on MySocLab: Beyond the Melting Pot Reconsidered

Although the metaphor of the melting pot is still used today, observers recognize that it hides as much about a multiethnic United States as it discloses. Therefore, the metaphor of the salad bowl emerged in the 1970s to portray a country that is ethnically diverse. As we can distinguish the lettuce from the tomatoes from the peppers in a tossed salad, we also can see the increasing availability of ethnic restaurants and the persistence of “foreign” language newspapers. The dressing over the ingredients is akin to the shared value system and culture covering, but not hiding, the different ingredients of the salad.

Yet even the notion of a salad bowl is wilting. Like its melting-pot predecessor, the picture of a salad is static—certainly not what we see in the United States. It also hardly calls to mind the myriad cultural pieces that make up the fabric or mosaic of our diverse nation.

The kaleidoscope offers another familiar, yet more useful, analogy. Patented in 1817 by Scottish scientist Sir David Brewster, the kaleidoscope is both a toy and increasingly a table artifact of upscale living rooms. Users of this optical device are aware that when they turn a set of mirrors, the colors and patterns reflected off pieces of glass, tinsel, or beads seem to be endless. The growing popularity of the phrase “people of color” aptly reflects the kaleidoscope that is the United States. The changing images correspond to the often-bewildering array of groups in the United States.

 Explore the Activity on MySocLab: Of Melting Pots, Mosaics, and Kaleidoscopes

It is difficult to describe the image created by a kaleidoscope because it changes dramatically with little effort. As we can see in  Figure 9.1 , which focuses on the youth population, the last decade has seen a rapid increase in the number of racial and ethnic minorities and an actual decline in the number of White non-Hispanics. The old-time expression that “today’s youth are tomorrow’s leaders” takes on new meaning when viewed through the kaleidoscope of diversity. Similarly, in the kaleidoscope of the United States, we find it a challenge to describe the multiracial nature of this republic. Perhaps in viewing the multiethnic, multiracial United States as a kaleidoscope, we may take comfort that the Greek word kalos means “beautiful” (Schaefer  1992 ).

FIGURE 9.1 Youth and Diversity: Change 2000 to 2010 in Population Under Age 18

For the period from 2000 to 2010, the youth population among White non-Hispanics has dropped by almost 10 percent while increasing in the minority population by almost 22 percent.

Source: Bureau of the Census 2011d:slide 42.

How easy is it to describe the image to someone else as we gaze into the eyepiece of a kaleidoscope? That challenge is similar to that faced by educators who toil with what constitutes the ethnic history of the United States. We can forgive the faux pas by the Washington Post writer who described the lack of Hispanic-speaking (rather than Spanish-speaking) police as a factor contributing to the recent hostilities in the capital. Little wonder, given the bewildering ethnic patterns, that Chicago politicians, who sought to maintain the “safe” Hispanic congressional district after the results of the 2010 Census, found themselves scrutinized by Blacks fearful of losing their “safe” districts and critiqued by Latinos for not creating a second or even third safe seat. We can forgive Marlon Brando for sending a Native American woman to refuse his Oscar, thus protesting Hollywood’s portrayal of Native Americans. Was he unaware of Italian Americans’ disbelief when he won awards for his performance in The Godfather? We can understand why African Americans traumatized by Hurricane Katrina turned their antagonism from the White power structure that they perceived as ignoring their needs to the Latinos who took advantage of reconstruction projects in New Orleans.

As Galinna Espinoza, the editorial director of Latina magazine, points out in “Speaking Out” one cannot generalize about Latinos, much less all racial and ethnic minorities.

To develop a better understanding of the changing image through the kaleidoscope, we first try to learn what progress has taken place and why miscommunication among our diverse peoples seems to be the rule rather than the exception.

 Speaking Out: That Latino “Wave” Is Very Much American

In 1990, I had just started my senior year at an Ivy League college when my political science professor asked me to come see her about the first paper I had turned in. While she complimented me on how much work I had put into it, she went on to explain that writing a college paper must be especially difficult for someone for whom English was not her first language.

I don’t remember anything else she said after that, so consumed was I with trying to understand how she could have made this assumption. I was, after all an English major. Was it my accent I picked up during my childhood in Queens, NY? Or my last name?

Galina Espinoza

I find myself asking the same question now, with the release of the 2010 U.S. Census figures. Today, Hispanics number more than 50 million strong and account for 1 out of every 6 adults. Some politicians and pundits see our country besieged by a wave of non–English-speaking immigrants coming through a porous border.

Here’s why they—like my professor—are wrong. What accounts for the dramatic rise in the Latino population are births: 1 out of every 4 children born in the United States today is Hispanic. In turn, that means most Latinos speak English as their first language. According to a 2007 analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center, “nearly all Hispanic adults born in the United States of immigrant parents report they are fluent in English,” a percentage that rises “among later generations of Hispanic adults.”

Of course, like many Americans of different cultural backgrounds, Latinos identify strongly with their roots. But even if many of us are bilingual, or want our children to learn Spanish, our true link to Hispanic identity is not through language. It’s through culture. We like to know how to cook the foods of our home countries and what our traditional holiday celebrations are. We like to see authentic portrayals of ourselves. Our favorite TV series, according to Advertising Age, are Grey’s Anatomy and Desperate Housewives, which prominently feature Latino characters.

And when it comes to politics, we like leaders who understand that Cubans in Miami just might vote differently from Mexicans in Chicago. It is in the ways that our cultural identity begins to reshape the national one that the true social impact of Latinos will be felt. And so if you want to understand who your new Latino neighbors really are, know this: We want to eat our rice and beans. But our apple pie, too.

Source: Espinoza 2011:9A.

Has the Post-Racialism Era Arrived?

 Listen to the Audio on MySocLab: Inspired by Obama

At certain points in recent history, observers have declared that racism is for all intents and purposes gone. Many of the abolitionists were content to end slavery and cared relatively little about how the freed Negroes were treated following the Civil War. Certainly the legal end of de jure segregated schools in Brown vs. Board of Education proclaimed equality to many writers in the mid-1950s. But for even more, the election of an African American, the son of an immigrant no less, to the presidency in 2009 marked a new era.

Even the man he defeated implied we could take pride in entering some sort of era of post-racialism. Senator John McCain walked to the stage in Phoenix, Arizona, on election night to concede the election. In his opening remarks to his assembled supporters, he observed the following:

·  A century ago, President Theodore Roosevelt’s invitation of Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage in many quarters.{{{8232}}}America today is a world away from the cruel and frightful bigotry of that time. There is no better evidence of this than the election of an African-American to the presidency of the United States. (McCain 2008)

Have we moved on? The day after President Obama’s re-election, a disturbance broke out on the campus of Hampden-Sydney in Virginia and at the University of Mississippi. White students hurled racial epithets and threatened violence at some of the Black students on the campus. Later, students gathered in vigils calling for racial harmony. Some have observed that the only thing left to do is simply stop talking about racism and, perhaps by extension, sexism. The sentiment is that if we don’t focus on it or perhaps stop collecting data broken down by racial categories, then racism will disappear (Mitchell  2012 ; Roanoke Times  2012 ).

 Read the Document on MySocLab: Race in the Era of President Obama

Does the evidence that an African American has been elected to the presidency mean “case closed” on intolerance and that everyone accepts diversity in the United States? Or was Obama able to grab the support of the majority of the electorate by speaking non-offensively about race and not being viewed as too “Black” (Dyson  2011 ; Touré  2011 )? Obviously, few would endorse such a sweeping statement. Even the most casual reading of daily newspapers and Internet news bulletins recounts episodes of intolerance, hate crimes, and veiled racism in some of the opposition to immigration reform, affordable housing, and education reform.

The Glass Half Empty

A common expression makes reference to a glass half full or half empty. If one is thirsty, it is half empty and in need of being replenished. If one is attempting to clear dirty dishes, it is half full. For many people, especially Whites, the progress of subordinate groups or minorities makes it difficult to understand calls for more programs and new reforms and impossible to understand when minority neighborhoods erupt in violence.

In absolute terms, the glass has been filling up, but people in the early twenty-first century do not compare themselves with people in the 1960s. For example, Latinos and African Americans regard the appropriate reference group to be Whites today; compared with them, the glass is half empty at best.

 Read the Document on MySocLab: Whites Account for Under Half of Births in U.S.

Figure 9.2  shows the current picture and recent changes by comparing African Americans and Hispanics with Whites as well as contemporary data for Native Americans (American Indians). We see that the nation’s largest minority groups—African Americans and Hispanics—have higher household income, complete more schooling, and enjoy longer life expectancy today than in 1975. White Americans have made similar strides in all three areas. The gap remains and, if one analyzes it closely, has actually increased in some instances. Both Blacks and Latinos in 2009 had just edged out the income level that Whites had exceeded back in 1975, more than three decades behind! Also, Black Americans today have barely matched the life expectancy that Whites had a generation earlier. Similarly, many minority Americans remain entrenched in poverty: nearly one out of four Hispanics and African Americans.

Little has changed since 1975. We chose 1975 because that is a year for which we have comparable data for Latinos, Whites, and African Americans. However, the patterns would be no different if we considered 1950, 1960, or 1970. This does give us a starting point because, as Martin Luther King Jr. noted, “In order to answer the question, ‘Where do we go from here?. . . we must first recognize where we are now” (Brooks  2012 : 45).

Some people hearing of the current struggles of people of color seeking work observe, “Yes, we are in the midst of a very long recession; everyone is doing poorly.” Yes that is true, but consider how Whites and Blacks have fared relative to one another. Let’s consider unemployment rates. There are issues about how unemployment is measured, but if we use the most-used definition, we can get a fair general picture of economic well-being. In November 2011, the White unemployment rate peaked at 9.2 percent. At the same time, the Black unemployment rate was 16.1 percent.

FIGURE 9.2 Changes in Schooling, Income, and Life Expectancy

Note: Education data are people age 25 and over. Data for 1975 Hispanic education estimated by author from data for 1970 and 1980. White data are for non-Hispanic (except in education and life expectancy).

Sources: Bureau of the Census 1988:167; Bureau of the Census 2011a: Tables 104, 229; DeNavas-Walt et al. 2011:Tables A-1, B-1.

If we turn to the good times six years earlier—November 2005—the unemployment rate for White America was only 4.3 percent. Yet, at the same time, the Black unemployment rate was 10.6 percent. In other words, the ability of African Americans to find work was as bad in the best recent economic times nationally as it was for Whites in the worst month of the recession (Bureau of Labor Statistics  2012b ).

Is There a Model Minority?

“Asian Americans are a success! They achieve! They succeed! They have no protests, no demands. They just do it!” This is the general image people in the United States often hold of Asian Americans as a group. They constitute a model or ideal minority because, although they have experienced prejudice and discrimination, they seem to have succeeded economically, socially, and educationally without resorting to political or violent confrontations with Whites. Some observers point to the existence of a  model minority as a reaffirmation that anyone can get ahead in the United States. Proponents of the model-minority view declare that because Asian Americans have achieved success, they have ceased to be subordinate and are no longer disadvantaged. This labeling is only a variation of  blaming the victim : With Asian Americans, it is praising the victim. Examining aspects of the socioeconomic status of Asian Americans allows a more thorough exploration of this view.

Asian Americans, as a group, have impressive school enrollment rates in comparison to the total population. In 2010, half of Asian Americans 25 years old or older held bachelor’s degrees, compared with 28 percent of the White population. These rates vary among Asian American groups: Asian Indians, Filipino Americans, Korean Americans, Chinese Americans, and Japanese Americans have higher levels of educational achievement than other Asian American groups. Yet other groups such as Vietnamese Americans and Pacific Islanders, including Native Hawaiians, fare much worse than White Americans (Bureau of the Census  2007a ,  2011a ).

This encouraging picture regarding some Asian Americans does have some qualifications, however, that question the optimistic model-minority view. According to a study of California’s state university system, although Asian Americans often are viewed as successful overachievers, they have unrecognized and overlooked needs and experience discomfort and harassment on campus. As a group, they also lack Asian faculty and staff members to whom they can turn for support. They confront many identity issues and must do a “cultural balancing act” along with all the usual pressures faced by college students. The report noted that an “alarming number” of Asian American students appear to be experiencing intense stress and alienation, problems that have often been “exacerbated by racial harassment” (Ohnuma  1991 ; Teranishi  2010 ).

Another misleading sign of the apparent success of Asian Americans is their high incomes as a group. Like other elements of the image, however, this deserves closer inspection. Asian American family income approaches parity with that of Whites because of their greater achievement than Whites in formal schooling. If we look at specific educational levels, however, Whites earn more than their Asian counterparts of the same age. Asian Americans’ average earnings increased by at least $2,300 for each additional year of schooling, whereas Whites gained almost $3,000. Asian Americans as a group have significantly more formal schooling but have lower household family income. We should note that to some degree, some Asian Americans’ education is from overseas and, therefore, may be devalued by U.S. employers. Yet in the end, educational attainment does pay off as much if one is of Asian descent as it does for White non-Hispanics (Kim and Sakamoto  2010 ; Zeng and Xie  2004 ).

So even with all the “tools” to succeed—supportive family, high achievement, and often attending prestigious schools—Asian Americans often hit what has been termed a bamboo ceiling. The  bamboo ceiling  refers to the barrier that talented Asian Americans face because of resentment and intolerance directed toward Asian Americans. The bamboo ceiling is clearly a nod to the term glass ceiling, a term that has historically been used to address barriers that women and minority group men have faced in the workplace. The presence of the bamboo ceiling reflects the cultural values and social norms that impact Asian professionals’ interactions with others and cause others to make negative judgments about them (Hyun  2006 , 2009).

Asian Americans are just over 5 percent of the U.S. population, but they account for 15 to 25 percent of Ivy League college enrollment. At the same time, as of 2011, they represented fewer than 2 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs and corporate officers. A national survey showed that Asian Americans who are successful in the corporate world must manage themselves so they don’t seem too ambitious or have too many ideas. Only 28 percent of Asian Americans feel very comfortable “being themselves” at the workplace, compared to 45 percent of African Americans, 41 percent of Latinos, and 42 percent of White workers (Center for Work-Life [sic] Policy  2011 ).

Even the positive stereotype of Asian American students as academic stars or whiz kids can be burdensome to the people so labeled. Asian Americans who do only modestly well in school may face criticism from their parents or teachers for their failure to conform to the whiz kid image. Some Asian American youths disengage from school when faced with these expectations or receive little support for their interest in vocational pursuits or athletics (Kibria  2002 ; Maddux, Galinsky, Cuddy, and Polifroni  2008 ).

Striking contrasts are evident among Asian Americans. For every Asian American household in 2010 with an annual combined income of $250,000 or more, another earns fewer than $15,000 a year. Almost every Asian American group has a higher poverty rate than non–Hispanic Whites. The lone exception is Filipinos, who tend to live in the relatively high-income states of Hawaii and California (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, and Smith 2011: Table HINC-01).

At first, one might be puzzled to see criticism of a positive generalization such as “model minority.” Why should the stereotype of adjusting without problems be a disservice to Asian Americans? The answer is that this incorrect view helps exclude Asian Americans from social programs and conceals unemployment and other social ills. When representatives of Asian groups seek assistance for those in need, people who have accepted the model-minority stereotype resent them. This is especially troubling given that problems of substance abuse and juvenile delinquency need to be addressed within the Asian American community.

If a minority group becomes viewed as successful, its members no longer will be included in any program designed to alleviate any problems they encounter as minorities. The positive stereotype reaffirms the United States system of mobility: New immigrants as well as established subordinate groups ought to achieve more merely by working within the system. At the same time, viewed from the conflict perspective outlined in Chapter 1, this is yet another instance of blaming the victim: If Asian Americans have succeeded, then Blacks and Latinos must be responsible for their own low status rather than recognizing society’s responsibility (Bascara  2008 ; Choi and Lahey  2006 ; Chou and Feagin  2008 ; Ryan  1976 ).

Acting White, Acting Black, or Neither

A common view advanced by some educators is that African Americans, especially males, do not succeed in school because they do not want to be caught acting White. That is, they avoid at all costs taking school seriously and do not accept the authority of teachers and administrators. Whatever the accuracy of such a generalization, acting White clearly shifts the responsibility of low school attainment from the school to the individual and, therefore, can be seen as yet another example of blaming the victim.  Acting White  is also is associated with speaking proper English or cultural preferences like listening to rock music rather than hip-hop (Ferguson  2007 ; Fordham and Ogbu  1986 ; Fryer  2006 ; Ogbu  2004 ; Ogbu with Davis  2003 ).

In the context of high achievers, to what extent do Blacks not want to act White? Many scholars have noted that individuals’ efforts to avoid looking like they want an education has a long history and is hardly exclusive to any one race. Students of all colors may hold back for fear of being accused of being “too hardworking.”

Back in the 1950s, one heard disparaging references to “teacher’s pet” and “brown nosing.” Does popularity come to high school debaters and National Honor Society students or to cheerleaders and athletes? Academic-oriented classmates are often viewed as social misfits, nerds, and geeks and are seen as socially inept even if their skill building will later make them more economically independent and often more socially desirable. For minority children, including African Americans, to take school seriously means they must overcome their White classmates’ same desire to be cool and not a nerd. In addition, Black youth also must come to embrace a curriculum and respect teachers who are much less likely to look or sound like them (Chang and Demyan  2007 ; Ferguson  2007 ; Tyson et al.  2005 ).

The acting-White thesis overemphasizes personal responsibility rather than structural features such as quality of schools, curriculum, and teachers. Therefore, it locates the source of Black miseducation—and by implication, the remedy—in the African American household. As scholar Michael Dyson ( 2005 ) observes, “When you think the problems are personal, you think the solutions are the same.” Often one may hear the comment, “If we could only get African American parents to encourage their children to work a little harder and act better (i.e., White), everything would be fine.” As Dyson notes, “It’s hard to argue against any of these things in the abstract; in principle, such suggestions sound just fine.”

Of course, not all Whites act White. To equate acting White with high academic achievement has little empirical or cultural support. Although more Whites between ages 18 and 19 are in school, the differences are relatively small—69 percent of Whites compared to 65 percent of Blacks. Studies comparing attitudes and performance show that Black students have the same attitudes—good and bad—about achievement as their White counterparts. Too often, we tend to view White slackers who give a hard time to the advanced placement kids as “normal,” but when low-performing African Americans do the same thing, it becomes a systemic pathology undermining everything good about schools. The primary stumbling block is not acting White or acting Black but being presented with similar educational opportunities (Buck 2011; Bureau of the Census  2011a : Table 224; Downey  2008 ; Tough 2004; Tyson et al.  2005 ).

Persistence of Inequality

Progress has occurred. Indignities and injustices have been eliminated, allowing us to focus on the remaining barriers to equity. But why do the gaps in income, living wages, education, and even life expectancy persist? Especially perplexing is whether the glass is half full or half empty, given the numerous civil rights laws, study commissions, favorable court decisions, and efforts by nonprofits, faith-based organizations, and the private sector.

In trying to comprehend the persistence of inequality among racial and ethnic groups, sociologists and other social scientists have found it useful to think in terms of the role played by social and cultural capital. Popularized by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, these concepts refer to assets that are not necessarily economic but do impact economic capital for one’s family and future. Less cultural and social capital may be passed on from one generation to the next, especially when prejudice and discrimination make it difficult to overcome deficits. Racial and ethnic minorities reproduce disadvantage, while Whites are more likely to reproduce privilege (Bourdieu  1983 ; Bourdieu and Passeron 1990).

Cultural capital  refers to noneconomic forces such as family background and past investments in education that is then reflected in knowledge about the arts and language. It is not necessarily book knowledge; it is the kind of education valued by the elites. African Americans and Native Americans have in the past faced significant restrictions in receiving a quality education. Immigrants have faced challenges due to English not being spoken at home. Muslim immigrants face an immediate challenge in functioning in a culture that gives advantages to a different form of spirituality and lifestyle. The general historical pattern has been for immigrants, especially those who came in large numbers and settled in ethnic enclaves, to take two or three generations to reach educational parity. Knowledge of hip-hop and familiarity with Polish cuisine is culture, but it is not the culture that is valued and prestigious. Society privileges or values some lifestyles over others. This is not good, but it is social reality. Differentiating between pierogies will not get you to the top of corporate America as fast as will differentiating among wines. This is, of course, not unique to the United States. Someone settling in Japan would have to deal with cultural capital that includes knowledge of Noh Theatre and tea ceremonies. In most countries, you are much better off following the run-up to the World Cup rather than the contenders for the next Super Bowl (DiMaggio  2005 ).

Social capital  refers to the collective benefit of durable social networks and their patterns of reciprocal trust. Much has been written about the strength of family and friendship networks among all racial and ethnic minorities. Family reunions are major events. Family history and storytelling is rich and full. Kinfolk are not merely acquaintances but truly living assets upon whom one depends or, at the very least, feels comfortable to call on repeatedly. Networks outside the family are critical to coping in a society that often seems determined to keep anyone who looks different down. But given past as well as current discrimination and prejudice, these social networks may help you become a construction worker, but they are less likely to get you into a boardroom. Residential and school segregation make developing social capital more difficult. Immigrant professionals find that their skills or advanced degrees are devalued, and they are shut out of networks of the educated and influential. Working-class Latinos and Blacks have begun to develop informal social ties with their White coworkers and neighbors. Professional immigrants, in time, become accepted as equals, but racial and ethnic minority communities continue to resist institutional marginalization.

Self-owned businesses are a way a minority community can create social capital. Pictured here is an African American woman in front of her beauty salon business.

Social capital is tricky. If the networks include those who make hiring decisions and are influential, social contacts can be very beneficial. Bonding in this manner can a crucial bridge serving immigrants in their new homeland. However, if limited to one’s own group, a network can serve the positive aspect of building self-confidence, as noted in the ethnic paradox in  Chapter 4 .  Ethnic paradox  refers to the maintenance of one’s ethnic ties in a manner that can assist with assimilation with larger society. In Research Focus, we consider the intriguing case of shark fin soup and how that serves to bind many within the Chinese American community, but in the eyes of some Chinese Americans serves to unfairly make them stand out from mainstream American society (Coleman  1988 ; Cranford  2005 ; Lancee  2010 ; Portes  1998 ; Portes and Vickstrom  2011 ).

 Research Focus: Challenge to Pluralism: The Shark’s Fin

Popular among the Chinese generally and also Chinese Americans is the delicacy of shark’s fin soup. Generally viewed as a luxury food item, it is often served at special occasions such as wedding and anniversary banquets.

However, growing numbers feel that eating a soup using shark fins contributes to the global decline of certain species of sharks. They are not joining the celebration. It is puzzling because the fins themselves are virtually tasteless but are considered the critical ingredient to this delicacy, which typically includes mushrooms, diced ham, other seafood, and chicken for taste.

In 2011, California enacted a ban both on the sale and on the possession of shark fins, including shark’s fin soup. Hawaii passed a similar law, as did Washington State and Oregon. Taken together, these four states account for 43 percent of the nation’s Chinese American population.

These bans represent a frontal assault on their culture in the view of many in the Chinese American communities. Scholars would see this as a case for  cultural relativism , where an action of a particular group is judged objectively within the context of a particular culture. However, even some Chinese Americans favor such a ban. California state legislator Paul Fong, who grew up with shark’s fin soup, says he is “environmentally conscious” and takes “the scientists’ side.”

Cultural relativism often surfaces in the United States as a source of tension. Society and courts in particular refuse to recognize polygamous marriages, even if they are legal in the immigrants’ country. Shark’s fin soup is yet another battleground for how much society is willing to accommodate cultural differences (Brown  2011 ; Eilperin  2011 ; Forero 2006).

As the ranks of the powerful and important have been reached by all racial and ethnic groups, social capital is more widely shared, but this process has proven to be slower than advocates of social equality would prefer. Perhaps it will be accelerated by the tendency of successful minority members to be more likely to network with up-and-coming members of their own community. At the same time, Whites more likely will be more comfortable, even complacent, with the next generation making it on their own. We are increasingly appreciative of the importance of aspirations and motivations that are often much more present among people with poor or immigrant backgrounds than those born of affluence. We know that bilingualism is an asset, not a detriment. Children who have translated for their parents develop real-world skills at a much earlier age than their monolingual English counterparts (Bauder  2003 ; Monkman, Ronald, and Théraméne  2005 ; Portes  1998 ; Yosso  2005 ).

Considering cultural and social capital does leave room for measured optimism. Racial and ethnic groups have shared their cultural capital, whether it is the music we dance to or the food we eat. As the barriers to privilege weaken and eventually fall, people of all colors will be able to advance. The particular strength that African Americans, tribal people, Latinos, Asian Americans, and arriving immigrants bring to the table is that they also have the ability to resist and to refuse to accept second-class status. The role that cultural and social capital plays also points to the need to embrace strategies of intervention that will increasingly acknowledge the skills and talents found in a pluralistic society.

Talking Past One Another

In 1991, Los Angeles police beat up African American Rodney King, but a bystander videotaped this incident. Subsequently, the officers were acquitted of all wrongdoing in 1992, which touched off riots that left 55 dead. King, in an effort to stem the violence, pled to news cameras at the time “Can we all get along?”’ (Medina  2012 ). Two decades and counting, we still ask this question, even in more tranquil situations such as in the workplace and the classroom. What do the data show?

“They say we’re not placing enough emphasis on diversity.”

First, do people really have close friends of different racial and ethnic backgrounds? Sociologists have attempted to gauge the amount of White–Black interaction. But unless the studies are done carefully, it is easy to overestimate just how much racial togetherness is taking place.

Take the case of sociologist Tom Smith, who heads up the respected General Social Survey. Smith noticed that a high proportion of Whites and African Americans indicate they have close friends of the other race. But is this, in fact, true? When Smith and his fellow researchers analyzed data from the survey, they found that response rates varied according to how the question was phrased.

For example, when asked whether any of their friends they feel close to were Black, 42.1 percent of Whites said, “Yes.” Yet, when asked to give the names of friends to whom they feel close, only 6 percent of Whites listed a close friend of a different race or ethnicity.

Grace Kao and Kara Joyner looked at a national study of adolescents. Given that over a third of teens in the United States are non–White or Hispanic, one might expect a lot of cross-race friendships. Over 91 percent of non–Hispanic whites give non–Hispanic White as best same-sex friends—a margin close to what Smith found among all adults. Members of minorities, as one might expect, are a bit more open, with 85 percent of Blacks selecting only Blacks, and 62 percent of Mexican Americans naming only other Mexican Americans. Regardless of group, friendships that cross boundaries are less likely to involve visiting in each other’s homes or sharing problems.

Overall, despite growing diversity in the social landscape, when research is conducted carefully, it shows that same diversity is not reflected in whom we regard as our own friends (Kao and Joyner  2004 ; Smith  1999 ; Vaquera and Kao  2008 ).

 Watch the Video on MySocLab: Sociology in Focus: Race and Ethnicity

Second, do we at least listen to what others are saying if they come from a racial or ethnic background that differs from ours? As we have seen, despite diversity, we are not necessarily friends. African Americans, Italian Americans, Korean Americans, Puerto Ricans, Native Americans, Mexican Americans, and many others live in the United States and interact daily, sometimes face-to-face and constantly through the media. But communication does not mean we listen to, much less understand, one another. Sometimes we assume that, as we become an educated nation, we will set aside our prejudices. Yet, in recent years, our college campuses have been the scenes of tension, insults, and even violence. Fletcher Blanchard and his colleagues ( 1991 ) conducted an experiment at Smith College and found that even overheard statements can influence expressions of opinion on the issue of racism.

The researchers at Smith College asked a student who said she was conducting an opinion poll for a class to approach seventy-two White students as each was walking across the campus. Each time she did so, she also stopped a second White student—actually a confederate working with the researchers—and asked her to also participate in the survey. Both students were asked how Smith College should respond to anonymous racist notes that were sent to four African American students in 1989. However, the confederate was always instructed to answer first. In some cases, she condemned the notes; in others, she justified them. Blanchard and his colleagues ( 1991 ) concluded that “hearing at least one other person express strongly antiracist opinions produced dramatically more strongly antiracist public reactions to racism than hearing others express equivocal opinions or opinions more accepting of racism” (pp. 102–103). However, a second experiment demonstrated that when the confederate expressed sentiments justifying racism, the subjects were much less likely to express antiracist opinions than those who heard no opposing opinions. In this experiment, social control (through the process of conformity) influenced people’s attitudes and the expression of those attitudes.

Third, are we even willing to discuss diversity? Or do we fear being seen as too politically correct or incorrect? Barack Obama as a candidate made speeches dedicated to revisiting the issue of race, but none of his White opponents did. There certainly was initial optimism about a new era of race; however, people today evoke a color-blind racism and see little evidence of intolerance except when confronted by a horrendous hate crime. Others contend that racism is often couched in a “backstage” manner through discussions of immigration, affirmative action, antipoverty programs, and profiling for national security (Kershaw  2009 ).

Barack Obama’s two terms as president is historic, but little evidence suggests it has launched a nationwide discussion of race, much less a postracial nation of some type. With an African American elected president, were people more relaxed to openly discuss race? Even since he became president, Obama himself has seemed reluctant to discuss much less tackle policies related to race. As we noted in  Chapter 3 , he did weigh in on the shooting death of the Black youth Trayvon Martin, who was shot by a person on civilian patrol in what many have called a vicious case of racial profiling. Otherwise, Obama has been largely silent. His 2011 State of the Union address was the first by any president since 1948 to not mention poverty or the poor. One analysis of his public statements during his first two years in office found that he talked less about race than any Democratic president since 1961 (Gillion  2012 ; Harris  2012 ; White House  2012 ).

 Listen to the Audio on MySocLab: A Revealing History of a Multiracial America

Fourth, even with an absence of cross-racial friendships and willingness to talk about race, realization is growing that people do not mean the same thing when they address problems of race, ethnicity, gender, or religion. A husband regularly does the dishes and feels he is an equal partner in doing the housework, not recognizing that he left the care of his infant daughter totally to his wife. A manager is delighted that he has hired a Puerto Rican salesperson but makes no effort to ensure the new employee will adjust to an all-White, non–Hispanic staff.

We talk, but do we talk past one another? Surveys regularly show that different ethnic and racial groups have different perceptions, whether on immigration policies, racial profiling, or whether discrimination occurs in the labor force. Sociologist Robert Blauner ( 1969 ,  1972 ) contends that Blacks and Whites see racism differently. Minorities see racism as central to society, as ever-present, whereas Whites regard it as a peripheral concern and a national concern only when accompanied by violence or involving a celebrity. African Americans and other minorities consider racist acts in a broader context: “It is racist if my college fails to have Blacks significantly present as advisers, teachers, and administrators.” Whites would generally accept a racism charge if a job had been explicitly denied to an appropriately qualified minority member. Furthermore, Whites would apply the label racist only to the person or the few people who were actually responsible for the act. Members of minority groups would be more willing to call most of a college’s members racist for allowing racist practices to persist. For many Whites, the word racism is a red flag, and they are reluctant to give it the wide use typically employed by minorities—that is, those who have been oppressed by racism (Lichtenberg  1992 ).

Is one view correct—the broader minority perspective or the more limited White outlook? No, but both are a part of the social reality in which we all live. We need to recognize both interpretations.

 Read the Document on MySocLab: A Different Mirror

When we considered Whiteness in  Chapter 4 , we saw that the need to confront racism, however perceived, is not to make Whites guilty and absolve Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans of any responsibility for their present plight. Rather, to understand racism, past and present, is to understand how its impact has shaped both a single person’s behavior and that of the entire society (Bonilla-Silva and Baiocchi 2001; Duke  1992 ).

Conclusion

As the United States promotes racial, ethnic, and religious diversity, it also strives to impose universal criteria on employers, educators, and realtors so that subordinate racial and ethnic groups can participate fully in the larger society. In some instances, to bring about equality of results—not just equality of opportunity—programs have been developed to give competitive advantages to women and minority men. These latest answers to social inequality have provoked much controversy over how to achieve the admirable goal of a multiracial, multiethnic society, undifferentiated in opportunity and rewards.

SPECTRUM OF INTERGROUP RELATIONS

Relations between racial, ethnic, or religious groups take two broad forms: as situations characterized by either consensus or conflict. Consensus prevails where assimilation or fusion of groups has been completed. Consensus also prevails in a pluralistic society in the sense that members have agreed to respect differences among groups. By eliminating the contending group, extermination and expulsion also lead to a consensus society. In the study of intergroup relations, it is often easy to ignore conflict where a high degree of consensus is present because it is assumed that an orderly society has no problems. In some instances, however, this assumption is misleading. Through long periods of history, misery inflicted on a racial, ethnic, or religious group was judged to be appropriate, if not actually divinely inspired.

In recent history, achieving harmonious relations between all racial, ethnic, and religious groups has been widely accepted as a worthy goal. The struggle against oppression and inequality is not new. It dates back at least to the revolutions in England, France, and the American colonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The twentieth century was unique in the extension of equality to the less-privileged classes, many of whose members are racial and ethnic minorities. Conflict along racial and ethnic lines is especially bitter now because it evokes memories of slavery, colonial oppression, and overt discrimination. Today’s African Americans are much more aware of slavery than contemporary poor people are of seventeenth-century debtors’ prisons.

Unquestionably, the goals of the struggle for justice among racial and ethnic groups have not completely been met. Many people are still committed to repression, although they may see it only as benign neglect of those less privileged. Such repression leads to the dehumanization of both the subordinated individual and the oppressor. Growth in equal rights movements and self-determination for developing countries largely populated by non–White people has moved the world onto a course that seems irreversible. The old ethnic battle lines now renewed in Iran, Kenya, Sudan, and Chechnya in Russia have only added to the tensions.

Self-determination, whether for groups or individuals, often is impossible in societies as they are currently structured. Bringing about social equality, therefore, will entail significant changes in existing situations. Because such changes are not likely to occur with everyone’s willing cooperation, the social costs will be high. However, if racial and ethnic relations in the world today have any trend, it is the growing belief that the social costs, however high, must be paid to achieve self-determination.

It is naive to foresee a world of societies in which one person equals one vote and all are accepted without regard to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, disability status, or sexual orientation. It is equally unlikely to expect to see a society, let alone a world, that has no privileged class or prestigious jobholders. Contact between different peoples, as we have seen numerous times, precedes conflict. Contact also may initiate mutual understanding and appreciation.

Assimilation, even when strictly followed, does not necessarily bring with it acceptance as an equal, nor does it mean that one will also be tolerated. Segregation persists. Efforts toward pluralism can be identified, but we can also easily see the counter-efforts, whether they are the legal efforts to make English the official language or acts of intimidation by activists patrolling the nation’s borders, Klansmen, skinheads, and others. However, the sheer changing population of the United States guarantees that we will learn, work, and play in a more diverse society.

The task of making this kaleidoscope image of diverse cultures, languages, colors, and religions into a picture of harmony is overwhelming. But the images of failure in this task, some of which we have witnessed in our news media, are even more frightening. We can applaud success and even take time to congratulate ourselves, but we must also review the unfinished agenda.

MySocLab  Study and Review on MySocLab

Summary

· 1. Like the image viewed in a kaleidoscope, the diversity of the American population is constantly changing with what has been often called minority groups accounting for increasing proportions of the population.

· 2. It is agreed that racial and ethnic minority groups have made great strides during the last two generations in the United States, but the gap between them and White men and women has remained the same.

· 3. Asian Americans are often labelled as a model minority, which overlooks the many problems they face and minimizes the challenges of succeeding despite prejudice and discrimination.

· 4. African Americans have made gains in all levels of formal schooling but still fall behind the gains made by others. Debate continues over the appropriateness of the notion that Black youths avoid the appearance of acting White.

· 5. Inequality persists despite visible improvement because most racial and ethnic groups are unable to accumulate social and cultural capital.

· 6. While interaction across racial and ethnic lines occurs with increasing significance, it is less clear whether we are all listening to what each other has to say.

· 7. White people generally apply the charge of racism when it is operating explicitly, whereas members of racial and ethnic groups are more likely to apply it more generally where disadvantages persist.

Key Terms

acting White,  p. 245

bamboo ceiling,  p. 244

blaming the victim,  p. 243

cultural capital,  p. 246

cultural relativism,  p. 247

ethnic paradox,  p. 247

model minority,  p. 243

social capital,  p. 246

Review Questions

· 1. What contributes to the changing image of diversity in the United States?

· 2. Pose views of an issue facing contemporary society that takes the position of half full and then half empty.

· 3. Why is it harmful to be viewed as a model minority?

· 4. Is one view of racism the correct one?

· 5. Why are White Americans less likely to be concerned with social and cultural capital?

Critical Thinking Questions

· 1. Considering the stereotypes that persist, how do stereotypes affect the people who are stereotyped as well as those who express them?

· 2. Consider conversations you have with people very different from yourself. Why do you feel those people are different? To what degree did you talk to them or past them? To what degree do they talk to you or past you?

· 3. How have places where you have worked, even part-time, differed from those of your parents or grandparents in terms of diversity of the workforce? What