Lecture: Theories of Belonging
Lecture script · about 15–20 minutes spoken · Week 3
Opening
Think about a school's welcome letter to new families. Does it ask families to learn the school's ways as fast as they can, or does it promise interpreters, clubs, and room for home languages? A hospital makes the same choice when it decides how to serve people who speak another language. So does a hiring manager with a private idea of who fits. Each of them is acting out a theory of belonging, whether they know it or not.
In Week 1 you learned the field's questions: who made a record, whom it served, whom it affected, and how the people affected answered. You also met the archive, an illustrative, unnamed public library's collection of oral histories. In Week 2 you learned what race, ethnicity, and discrimination mean. In this lecture we put those words to work. Assimilation and internal colonialism are arguments about race, ethnicity, and discrimination, so you already hold the tools to read them.
Here's my plan. I'll walk you through six frameworks, each with an author, a year, and its critics. Then we'll test which one fits a real account. Next week, in Week 4, the course opens its first core field, Indigenous nations, and puts this week's immigrant model to the test.
1. Assimilation and the melting pot
Think about starting a new job. In the first month you pick up the slang, the lunch habits, and the way people write emails. Nobody hands you a rulebook, but you adjust. Now stretch that over a lifetime and over a whole community. That long adjustment is what the first theory describes.
Assimilation is the process of a group taking on the dominant society's culture and entering its institutions. The most famous picture of it is the melting pot, an image of many immigrant peoples fusing into one new American people. It was popularized by Israel Zangwill's play The Melting-Pot, first staged in 1908.
Images are powerful because they're easy to remember. That's also the danger. A good image can stand in for evidence it never offered. So I want you to read the melting pot the way you'd read any record. What does it say? Peoples who arrive fuse into one. Who made it? A playwright. Whom does it describe? Immigrants who chose to come. And what does it leave out? Peoples who never arrived as immigrants, and groups the law kept out of the pot.
Pause and try this. Is the melting pot a record of what happened to every group, or an image to test?
Hold that thought for a second.
Here's the answer. It's an image to test. It comes from a 1908 play, and a play's picture is a claim, not a record of every group's history.
2. Two kinds of assimilation
Picture one main street over many years. The shop signs change first. New languages show up on the windows and the menus. But the signs don't tell you who sits on the school board, who gets hired at the bank, or who marries whom.
Gordon (1964), Assimilation in American Life, drew that exact line. Cultural assimilation is taking on the dominant group's language and customs. Structural assimilation is entering the dominant group's institutions, networks, and families, such as its schools, workplaces, clubs, and marriages. A group can do one without the other.
Here's where Week 2 comes back. Ethnicity is what cultural assimilation asks a family to keep or give up. And institutional discrimination is one reason structural assimilation can be blocked. Imagine a new hire at a warehouse who learns the team's slang in weeks. Two years later she still isn't invited to the supervisors' planning meeting, because its seats are filled by referral from current supervisors. Her customs changed. The door didn't open. The rule, not her effort, explains the gap.
Pause and try this. The new hire learned the slang but never joined the planning meeting. Which kind of assimilation happened, and which didn't?
Take a moment with the two words.
Here's the answer. Cultural assimilation happened, because she took on the language and customs. Structural assimilation didn't, because the institution's network stayed closed to her.
3. Cultural pluralism
Now flip the question. Assimilation asks how a family will blend in. A different answer asks how the country will make room for the family as it is.
That answer is cultural pluralism: keeping distinct cultures within a shared democracy instead of fusing them into one. Kallen (1915), "Democracy Versus the Melting-Pot", The Nation, argued for it, and his title tells you he was answering Zangwill head on. In a pluralist picture, a family keeps its language and its holiday. It also votes, pays taxes, and serves on juries like everyone else. The shared democracy is the frame, and the cultures inside it stay distinct.
Think about a high school whose students speak several home languages. An assimilation design moves every student into English and the school's existing customs as fast as possible. A pluralist design keeps one shared set of graduation rules and also runs clubs in several languages. One asks the students to change. The other asks the school to make room.
There's a caveat I don't want you to miss. Keeping a culture is one question. Being admitted to the shared democracy as an equal is another, and the frame alone doesn't settle it.
Pause and try this. Does cultural pluralism mean groups living apart with nothing shared?
Think about the second half of the definition.
Here's the answer. No. Cultural pluralism keeps cultures distinct within a shared democracy, so the shared part is half of the idea.
4. The critics of assimilation theory
Every framework in this course comes with its critics. Classic assimilation theory has three well-known ones, and I want you to be able to say all three.
First, it treats one Anglo-American core as the standard that every other group is measured against. Picture a team photo where one uniform counts as correct. If one group chose that uniform long ago, then fitting in really means becoming like that group. Second, it assumes every group follows one immigrant path: arrive by choice, then blend in over time. Third, it doesn't fit peoples incorporated by conquest, slavery, or colonization, who never chose to arrive at all.
That third point matters most for this course. A theory built on immigrants can't be the whole story when many peoples in the United States never immigrated. So when you test assimilation theory on any history, ask three questions. Whose culture is the standard? Did this people arrive by choice? Were the doors open?
Pause and try this. Name the critics' point that matters most for peoples who never chose to come.
Give it a beat.
Here's the answer. The third point. Classic assimilation theory doesn't fit peoples incorporated by conquest, slavery, or colonization, because it assumes everyone arrived by choice.
5. Segmented assimilation
Picture three cousins whose parents arrived in the same decade. One becomes an accountant and moves to the suburbs. One works long hours for low pay and can't get ahead. One becomes a teacher, stays in the old neighborhood, and runs the weekend language class. Same arrival, three roads.
Portes and Zhou (1993), "The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants", built a framework for that spread. Segmented assimilation holds that the children of immigrants follow different paths: upward into the middle class, downward into lasting poverty, or upward while keeping the community's ties and values. It's about the children, the second generation, and it denies that there's one road.
Let's test it on the archive's E3. She's an illustrative narrator, a nurse who arrived in the early 1970s after the 1965 immigration law, interviewed in the 2010s. She came alone in 1972. She sponsored her sister 5 years later, in 1977. Her training let her enter a profession, and her family kept its ties through sponsorship. That points toward the third path. But notice what's missing. Segmented assimilation is about children, and E3 speaks only for the first generation. One first-generation account can't settle the children's path.
Pause and try this. Which of the three paths does E3 point toward, and why?
Try it before I go on.
Here's the answer. The third path, upward while keeping the community's ties. She entered a profession, and her family stayed connected through sponsorship.
6. Immigrant peoples and colonized or incorporated peoples
Here's the field's central distinction, and it changes everything after it. Ask one question about any people: how did they become part of the United States?
Immigrant peoples are peoples who came to the United States by choice under its immigration rules. Colonized or incorporated peoples are peoples who became part of the United States by conquest, annexation, or force: Native nations, Mexicans in the lands ceded in 1848, Native Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, and enslaved Africans. A family whose land changed countries when a border moved didn't cross a border. A nation that was here before the United States didn't arrive at all.
Blauner (1969), "Internal Colonialism and Ghetto Revolt", built a framework on this difference. Internal colonialism applies the idea of colonialism inside a country, setting groups that entered by force apart from groups that entered as immigrants. Blauner applied it to Black communities in U.S. cities. Critics question how far the colonial comparison fits, and you should state both sides when you use it.
Now the archive's E4. He's an illustrative narrator whose family moved to a city under the federal relocation program in the late 1950s, tied to the Indian Relocation Act of 1956. He was 9 when they took the bus. The promised job lasted 4 months. He learned his nation's language from his grandmother, and he says his people are still here.
Pause and try this. Does the melting pot fit E4's family? Why or why not?
Think about how his nation became part of the country.
Here's the answer. It doesn't. His nation didn't arrive as immigrants, so the immigrant path the melting pot assumes misreads his family's story.
7. Double consciousness
Have you ever walked into a room and felt yourself being sized up, so part of you was watching yourself through someone else's eyes? Most people know a small version of that feeling. Now imagine it built into daily life by a line a whole society draws.
Du Bois (1903), The Souls of Black Folk, named that experience. He wrote of "the problem of the color-line" and described double-consciousness as "this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others". The color-line is Du Bois's phrase for the dividing line a society draws between people by race. Double consciousness is the experience of always seeing oneself through the eyes of a society that looks down on one's group, produced by the color-line.
This framework works differently from the others. Assimilation and its rivals look at groups from the outside, as paths and outcomes. Double consciousness describes belonging from the inside. And it came first: Du Bois wrote in 1903, before Zangwill's play was ever staged.
Pause and try this. Is double consciousness a psychological disorder?
Let that one settle for a second.
Here's the answer. No. Du Bois described an experience produced by the color-line, a social line, not an illness inside a person.
8. Testing the fit
You now hold six frameworks. Let's place them in time, from Dataset H, the dated attributions. Du Bois, 1903. Zangwill, 1908. Kallen, 1915. Gordon, 1964. Blauner, 1969. Portes and Zhou, 1993. Kallen answered the melting pot 7 years after the play was first staged. Gordon split assimilation 56 years after the image spread. Segmented assimilation came 29 years after Gordon. From the earliest to the latest is 90 years.
Now sort the cases you met this week. Native nations, Mexicans in the lands ceded in 1848, Native Hawaiians, Puerto Ricans, and enslaved Africans are 5 colonized or incorporated peoples. E3 is 1 immigrant account. That's 6 cases, and the immigrant model was built to read only one of them.
The last step is always a plain sentence that names the framework and the evidence. Here's one: E3 fits segmented assimilation better than the melting pot, because the family moved up and stayed connected. No framework settles a case on its own, and none describes every member of a group. You test the fit. You don't prove the framework.
Pause and try this. Write the plain sentence for E4 in your head: which framework, and what evidence?
Take a few seconds with it.
Here's the answer. E4 is the story of a colonized or incorporated people, not an immigrant family, so the melting pot misreads it, and internal colonialism fits better.
Closing
Let me pull it together. Assimilation is taking on the dominant culture and entering its institutions, and the melting pot is an image of it, not a history. Gordon split assimilation into cultural and structural. Kallen answered with cultural pluralism, distinct cultures within a shared democracy. The critics showed where assimilation theory breaks. Portes and Zhou followed the children down three paths. Blauner built internal colonialism on the difference between immigrant peoples and colonized or incorporated peoples. Du Bois named double consciousness from the inside. And every reading ends in one plain sentence.
Later in this module, the slide deck, the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, the quiz, the discussion, and the assignment give you room to try these tools yourself. Next week, in Week 4, Indigenous Nations, Sovereignty, and Settler Colonialism, the course opens its first core field and tests the immigrant model at once.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com