Ethnic Boundaries and Identi'y in Plural Societies

8/13/2019 Ethnic Boundaries and Identi'y in Plural Societies

1/32

Ethnic Boundaries and Identity in Plural Societies

Author(s): Jimy M. SandersSource: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 28 (2002), pp. 327-357Published by: Annual ReviewsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069245

Accessed: 26/08/2009 04:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevs.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Annual Reviewsis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAnnual Review of

Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3069245?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=annrevshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3069245?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/32

Annu.Rev.Sociol.2002.28:327-57doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.140741Copyright 2002byAnnualReviews.Allrightseserved

ETHNIC BOUNDARIES ND IDENTI'Y INPLURALSOCIETIESJimyM. SandersDepartmentof Sociology, Universityof SouthCarolina,Columbia,South Carolina29208;e-mail:[email protected] Words socialboundaries,thnic dentity, ocialnetworks, ocialcapital* Abstract Thispaper eviews tudiesof ethnicitynplural ocieties.The iteratureconcentratesn the social networks f ethnicgroups, he use of socialcapitalderivedfrom these networks,and ethnicidentity. give particular ttention o studiesthatconsiderhow nterpersonaletworkswithin thniccommunitiesnfluence hedegreeofclosurensocialboundaries nd hedegree o whichethnic dentitys retained.Mostofthe studies onsidered erehavebeenpublished uringhepast wo decades.However,a fewearlier tudiesareconsidered o as to frame ecentwork n anappropriateontext.Twomainresearch oci characterizeontemporarytudies-forms of economicactionundertakenby the immigrant generation and the socialization experiences of theiroffspring.Related reasof studyalso addressedn thisreview ncludehowparticipationin ethnicchurches,metropolitanndregional oncentrationsf ethnicpopulations,ndtransnationalismnfluence thnicgroups'experiences. concludebysuggestinga fewdirections or future esearch.

INTRODUCTIONEthnic boundariesarepatternsof social interaction hatgive rise to, and subse-quentlyreinforce, n-groupmembers' self-identification nd outsiders' confirma-tion of groupdistinctions. Ethnic boundariesare thereforebetter understoodassocial mediumsthroughwhich associationtranspires ather han as territorial e-marcations.Variousways of definingethnic groupsare found in the literature,but most emphasizecultural and geographicalelements. The first of these ele-ments is usuallyviewed as a social constructionnvolvinginsiders and outsidersmutuallyacknowledginggroupdifferences n culturalbeliefs andpractices.Insid-ers and outsiders do not necessarilyagree over the details of the acknowledgedculturaldivision,nor do groups necessarily develop similar nterpretations f therelative merits of the variousdistinguishingculturalattributes.The second basicelement used to define an ethnicgrouppertains o geographicalorigins,and there-fore social origins,that areforeignto the host society.While this elementusuallyhas an objectivebasis, it is also partlysubjective.The native-borngenerationsofan ethnic groupsometimes continue to be identifiedby outsiders,and in-group

0360-0572/02/0811-0327$14.00 327


3/32

328 SANDERSmembersmay self-identify,in terms of theirforeign origin.The ways in whichinsiders and outsidersgo aboutcharacterizinga group,and therebypositioningit and its members n the largersociety, areresponsiveto the social andhistori-cal context within whichintergroupnteractions akeplace (Nagel 1994, Waters1990). Consequently,ethnic identitiesare fluid across time and social contexts,sometimes even to the pointof ethnicswitching Alba 1990, Nagel 1995).Thepublicpresentation f ethnicidentity s also situational,which revealsthepluralorhybridcharacterof modem ethnicity (Espiritu1992, Lessinger 1995). Howard's(2000) recentreview of the socialpsychologyof identity ncludes ahelpfulsectionon ethnicidentity.The situationalandsubjectiveaspectsof ethnic identitymeanthatresearcherswho wish to understand owethnicityemergesas animportantactor n arangeofsocial processesmust do more thanidentify key culturaland behavioralcompo-nents of groups.Researchersmust also investigatepatternsof interaction hat inkgroups.The locations of cross-group nteractionsareusuallybetterunderstood nterms of social space than as physical places. The social spaces wherein cross-group nteractions akeplace arethe effective social boundariesbetweengroups.In thissense, it is theethnicboundary hatdefinesthegroup,not thecultural tuffthat t encloses (Barth1969,pp. 15). Accordingto Barth,studyingethnicgroupsonly in terms of their culturaltraits and institutional orms leads researchers oconfoundthe effects of cultural raditionwith how ecological circumstances eadto changesinpatternsof belief andbehavior.Thecultural raitsof an ethnicgrouprespondto ecological circumstances;herefore, orms of institutionalizedbehav-ior emergethatrepresentreactionsto the environmentas much as they reflectaculturalorientation.For example,the set of relationships hat have traditionallydefineda Vietnamese amilyhas been modifiedas a responseto the dissolutionofrefugeefamilies. Thisadaptive edefinition f thefamilyhas beenaccompaniedbytransformationsn traditionalgender-andage-basedhierarchiesof power(Gold1992,Kibria1993).Similar ransformations aveemerged orgroupsas diverseasthe Sudanese(Holtzman2000), Koreans Min 1998), Dominicans(Pessar1995),andSoutheastAsians (Camino& Krulfeld1994).Ethnic distinctionssometimes coincide with territorial egregation n the hostsociety and with social constructionsof racial identity.Widely acknowledgedracialdifferencescansharpen n-groupmembers'self-identification ndout-groupacknowledgmentof intergroupdistinctions.Similarly,when interactionbetweengroupsis limited and otherwiseconditionedby territorial egregation, ntergroupdifferencesgain emphasis.Constraints ncross-groupnteraction ontribute o therespectivegroups gnoranceof one another.This,inturn,encourages tereotyping.Race and hesegregatingendenciesof territorial oncentrations renotnecessarilycomponentsof ethnicboundaries,but when one orboth of these elementsof socialorganizationobtain, they can play important oles in the maintenanceof ethnicboundaries.Emphasison ethnic boundariesat the cost of giving less attention o the cul-turalcontentwithin those boundaries s anexampleof a good ideapushedtoo far,


4/32

ETHNIC OUNDARIESND IDENTITY

accordingto Cornell (1996). He critiquestwo lines of researchfor theirfailureto adequatelyaddressthe culturalcontentof what definesan ethnic group.Oneset of studies concentrateson the situationalcontexts that constructand givesignificanceto ethnic boundaries,andthereby give logic to ethnic groupforma-tion andpersistence Cornell1996, pp. 266). This approach,n Comell's (1996,pp.267) view, grants o ethnicidentity tself littlemeaning... andmakes t diffi-cult to account or thetenacitywith whichsomegroupsclingto identities. Hegoeson to argue, While circumstances onstruct dentities,identities,via the actionsthey set in motion,are also capableof reconstructing ircumstances. The secondline of researchcritiquedby Cornell concentrateson the responsesof groupstothe situationalcontext.Althoughthese studiespay attention o the culturalcon-tent of ethnicgroups,and how in-groupmembersconstructand reconstruct heirownidentity,ethnicity s treatedas thoughdrivenby factorsexternal o thegroup.Comell accepts the importanceof ethnic boundaries n definingethnic groups,but he cautionsthe field againstgiving shortshrift to whatgoes on withinthoseboundaries-the sharedculturalcontentof ethnicity.

Planand Scopeof the ReviewThe literature eviewedbelow reveals thatscholarsgive a greatdeal of attentionto ethnicboundaries,and to the culturalcontentwithin those boundaries,as theystudyethnicityin pluralsocieties. In so doing, scholarsplaceemphasison ethnicnetworksand social capitalderivedfrom suchnetworks.I brieflyexaminestudiesfrom the mid twentiethcentury,butthe bulk of the review samplesmore recentcontributions o the literature.Due to the foreign origindimensionof ethnicity,most of theliterature eviewedconsiders mmigrants ndtheiroffspring.Themainlines of inquiry oundin contemporarytudies,the economic actionof adultsandyouth socialization and education,receive the greatestattention n this review.However,I also attend o other mportant reasof study ncludingethnicchurches,populationconcentrations, nd transnationalism.distinguishrace fromethnicity,but racial boundariesandidentitysometimesoverlapwith ethnicboundariesandidentity,and this is reflected in the review.Althoughthe literaturehas a stronginternationalomponent, helion's shareof the workfocuses on the United States.The review is restricted o work available n English.

SOCIALNETWORKSAND SOCIALCAPITALSocial networksandthe socialcapitalderived romthemarecentral o thestudyofethnicityin pluralsocieties. The importanceof these social forces is documentedby studies of transnational etworks hatencourage abormigration Palloniet al.2001).These networksareshapedbycharacteristicsf the mmigrant treamandbystructural onditions n the host society (Grieco1998, Massey& Espinosa1997).Adaptivesocial networksthatemergein the host society exert stronginfluenceson the labor-marketxperiencesof adults andon parentalandcommunityefforts

329


5/32

330 SANDERSto facilitate hesuccessof thenextgenerationn the host society(Waldinger1996,Zhou& Bankston1998).Ethnicnetworks,like other forms of social organization,must protectthem-selves from internal orruption nd ncompetence.The more closed a network, hegreater hechancethateffectiveforms of monitoringandsanctioningwill develop(Coleman1990).Muchof the sociologicalstudyof closureoriginates romWeber([1922] 1978), but it is contemporarycholars(Murphy1988, Parkin1974) whohave advanced he studyof closureto include nonsubordination rocesses (e.g.,a minoritygroup s able to monopolizeopportunitieswithina limitedpartof thelabormarket).What Parkincalls solidaristicclosure involves social relationswithunderpinnings f ethnicsolidarity hatgenerateandchannelopportunitiesoa cross-sectionof thegroup.Suchnetworksareeffectiveinprovidingopportunitiesto groupmembers,butahighdegreeof closuremaylimit theircapacityto broadlyservethe ethniccommunity.Powerfulethnicnetworksareeffective in expandingtheemploymentopportunities f groupmembers hroughout metropolitanabormarket Lightet al. 1994, Nee & Sanders2001a). Therefore,networkclosure andpowerare not the same thing.Giventhe limitedabilityof ethnicentrepreneursoprovideemploymentopportunitiesLight& Gold2000), theeconomic fortunesofimmigrantgroupsmust includeparticipationn the largermetropolitan conomy.Consequently, mmigrantsare dispersedthroughoutmetropolitan abormarkets(Loganet al. 2000). Nee & Sanders 2001b) havedevelopeda multiple-forms-ofcapitalconceptualization f theimmigrantncorporation rocessin an effortto ex-plainthisdiversityof employment.Theirapproachs sensitiveto class originsandtransferredortransferable)ssets,humanandcultural apitalacquirednthe send-ing andreceivingsocieties, andsocial capitalderivedfromsocial networks.Dif-ferences n the labor-force xperiencesof menandwomenare animportant ourceof this diversity(Greenlees& Saenz 1999, Zhou 1992).Genderdifferencesoccurat thehighend(Choy2000) andthelow end(Kaufman2000) of the labormarket.Sociologistshavefoundtheconceptof socialcapitalto be useful inexplicatinghowethnic-based ormsof socialorganization ndcollectiveactionareembeddedininterpersonal etworks,andhowthese formsof organization ndactiongenerateanddistributeesources. n a recentreviewpiece,Portes 1998)traces herise of theterminologyof socialcapital.Hepointsout that he most fundamentalocialcapitalthesis-taking part n theorganizationalormsandcollectiveactionsof agroupcanlead to bothpositiveandnegativeconsequences or theindividualparticipants ndfor the groupas a whole-is found in the work of nineteenthcenturyscholarswho provided he intellectual oundationsuponwhich sociology is based. Portes& Sensenbrenner1993), coveringmuchof theground ncluded n Portes(1998),made amajorcontributionn identifying wo sourcesor mechanismsof socialcap-ital thatareespeciallyrelevant o the issues of ethnicboundariesand dentity.Oneof theconceptsrefersto anin-grouporiented,principled orm of behavior ermed

boundedsolidarity. This mechanism for generatingsocial capital involves asense of groupsolidarity hat s mostlikely to manifestas a reaction o real orper-ceived threats o thegroup.The othermechanism, enforceablerust, efersto the


6/32

ETHNIC OUNDARIES NDIDENTITYmonitoringandsanctioning apacityof agroup.As Portes&Sensenbrenner1993,pp. 1332)pointout withtheoxymoron trustexists in economic transactionspre-cisely becauseit is enforceableby means thattranscend he individuals nvolved,enforceable rusthas littleto do withtrust n anyaltruistic ense,but it has a lot todo with thecapacity o enforcegroupnorms.Mechanisms hatreduce he free-riderproblem(Olson 1965) are essential for effective and sustainedcollective action.Thetightconnectionbetweensocial capitalandsocial networksmakesanotherrecent review article relevant.Lin (1999) reviews the social-resources iterature,which usually appliesthe methodologiesof networkanalysis.Like social-capitaltheory,social-resources heoryfocuses on resourcesderivedfrom, and dissemi-natedthrough,social networks.Lin observes that the conceptof social capitalisusuallyused to frametheoreticalarguments,whereas social resourcesare used tooperationallydefine the goods hat social networksprovide.

THEEXPERIENCES F THEEUROPEANFOREIGNSTOCK:MID-TWENTIIETHENTURYCONCLUSIONSApproximatelyour decadesago,on theeve of aprofound hift in theimmigrationpolicies of the UnitedStates,therepercussions f which scholarsdid notanticipate(Glazer2000), theliteraturewasconcentrating n thecultural, ocial,andeconomiccircumstancesof groups populatedby two or more generationsborn and raisedin the host society. Since most of this research focused on the United States,moreover, he quota system of immigration estrictions n placebetween the mid1920s andmid 1960s meant hat heforeign-born ontingentof mostethnicgroupswas not being renewed. The literatureconcluded thatimportant actorsslowingthe economic advancement nd fullersocial acceptanceof ethnicgroups ncludedpersistingculturalpluralismdespitean intergenerationalendencytowardgreateracculturation,nstitutionalized estrictions hathadstratifyingconsequences,andthe informalexerciseof everydaynormativepracticesthatdiscouraged he entryof ethnic minorities nto theprimary ocial circles of the dominantgroup.While slow acquisitionof social skills thatcome with acculturationwas seen asone of the seriousproblems acedby immigrants, nd sometimesby theirchildren,the mainproblemsencounteredby latergenerationswere seen as havinglittle todo with acculturationbecause for them, the process was largely complete. Theprimaryproblem acingacculturated enerationswas seen as laggingassimilation.This lack of assimilationwasusuallyviewed asmore a functionof the ethnicgroupbeingdenied full acceptanceby the dominantgroupthan as a reluctanceof ethnicgroupsto become assimilated.By the mid 1960s, severalimportantsociological works dealing with ethnicgroupsandtheirsocialboundaries nd dentityhademerged.Muchof thisliteratureis reviewed by Hirschman(1983) and Yinger (1985), and therefore I limit mytreatment f theearlier iterature.Yet a brieflook at a few of the importantworksis helpfulfor conveyingthe state of the literature t that time.

331


7/32

332 SANDERSScholarshad generallycome to the conclusion that acculturationor adapta-tion) tended to obtainin two or threegenerations,whereas assimilationlaggedandthusethnicpluralismpersisted.At most, the literatureofferedonly qualified

support or the evolutionarynaturalhistoryassimilationarguments orwardedbyPark(1926, pp. 196), which are often summarized n the immigrant-adaptationand race-relations ycle of contacts,competition,accommodation,andeventualassimilation. Thequalifierof eventual ssimilationhastobe takenseriously,asthe earliergenerationof scholarsdocumented.Perhaps t is this long-termdimen-sion of assimilation heory, n conjunctionwith its ethnocentric one, thatengen-ders dissatisfactionfrom scholars.Certainly, t can be frustratingo work in anarea whereinfalsifyingone of the majortheoreticalpositionsis difficultbecauseof thetemporalnatureof the argument. ndeed,Lyman 1968) argues hatthe lackof specificity n mattersof timingrendersassimilation heoryuntestable.In the 1950s, Otis Dudley Duncan and his colleagues (Duncan & Duncan1955, Duncan & Lieberson1959) confirmedanecological componentof assimi-lationtheory.They found thatpersistingresidentialsegregation n Chicagocirca1930-1950 seemed to retardvarious other dimensions of assimilation. Becauseresidentialsegregationwas slow to breakdown, ethnic boundariesand identitywere slow to decline. In 1962, HerbertGanspublishedThe UrbanVillagers.Thesetting of this study was Boston's West End. Gans found retention of ethnicityamongworking-classItaliansdespitemovementtowardacculturation.Assimila-tion was slowed by economic deprivation.Only with the economic boom of the

post-WorldWarII perioddid sufficienteconomic opportunities pen up to faci-litate movement towardassimilation.While the inward-looking,defensive, andclosed working-classsubculture f Italianssometimesworkedagainstthegroup'sown interests,Gans concluded that this cultural orm was a practicalresponsetothedeprivations acingWest Enders.Overtime, this subculture ook on more of aworking-class,andless of anethnic,basis.The following year,Glazer& Moynihan's 1963) BeyondtheMeltingPot waspublished.The researchers tudiedfive ethnicgroups(includingAfrican Ameri-cans)in New YorkCity.Theyconcluded hat distinctethnic identitieswere main-tained,sometimes ntothe fourthgeneration,butthese identitiesevolved over timeas each new generation,responding o environmentalactors,becamefurtherre-movedfromtheirculturalorigins.Gradually, ybrid thnicitiesemerged, hat s, thehyphenatedAmericanethnic stock characterized yablendof old world-andhost-society influencesthatproducedsituationally onstructed thnic identities.Rapidmovementtowardassimilationhappened e.g., Germans),butit was uncommon.RobinWilliam's(1964) StrangersNext Door summarizesan eight-yearstudyconductedby the Cornell Studiesin IntergroupRelations researchprogram.Al-thoughthe focus of the studywas on AfricanAmericans,otherminority groupswere also included(Jews, MexicanAmericans,andItalians).As in other studiesof thetime,the racialboundarypertainingo AfricanAmericanswas confirmedasbeingmore resistant o bridging hanwereethnic boundaries n general.However,Mexican Americansalso experiencedstrongresistanceto assimilation.Williams


8/32

ETHNIC OUNDARIESNDIDENTITYargued hatcommunity-levelprocessesinteractedwith individual-levelprocessesinaffecting hepaceof assimilation.The morecompletelythe needs of association,cultural xpression,andeconomicopportunity re ulfilledwithin he socialcontextof the ethnicgroup,the less in-groupmembersneed the resourcesof thedominantsociety.Movement towarddual culturalismand selective assimilationcharacter-izes suchgroups.Giventhe relevanceof this thesis for today'sethnic-stratificationliterature,t maybe worthwhile o borrow hewords of Williams(1964, pp. 303):Itseems likely thatthere s a curvilinear elationshipbetween social assimilationinto the host communityand the degreeof integrationand stabilityof the ethniccommunity.The mosthighly integrated ommunity s likely to resist assimilationand to provide many satisfactions o hold its members.The highly disintegratedethnicpopulation s likely to be rejectedby the hostcommunityandforced into amarginalposition.In between lies the maximum ikelihood of successful assimi-lation. A similar view was expressedby Breton(1964) who arguedthe morecompletethe ethniccommunity n termsof social institutionsandbeneficialformsof social organization, he slowerthepace of ethnicgroup-inducedassimilation.Two additionalnotable contributions o the ethnic literatureof that time areGordon's(1964) Assimilation n AmericanLife and Shibutani& Kwan's (1965)EthnicStratification.Both of these worksconfirmed hat movement owardstruc-tural assimilation-such as having access to the social circles of the dominantgroup-was slow, andyet a high degreeof acculturation mongsecond and latergenerationswas typical.Similar o Williams(1964), Gordondescribedaccultura-tion as a processof developinga dual culturaloutlook. Thischaracter f accultur-ation and the tendencyfor assimilationto both lag behind workagainstthe totaldeclineof ethnic boundariesandenableethnicityto continueto carrymeaningfulconsequences or in-groupmembers.Both Gordon 1964) and Shibutani& Kwan(1965) identified he labor marketas a key institution hatopens up opportunitiesforthegreateracceptanceof ethnicgroups.However,neitherGordonnorShibutani& Kwanviewed thistendencyasbeing initiallydrivenby a moregeneral endencytowardsocial acceptance.Shibutani& Kwan'stheoryof ethnicstratification on-tends labor-market pportunitiesopen up for ethnic groupsbecause it is to theadvantageof powerful nterests o encourage he use of ethniclabor n responsetoeconomicchangesbroughtonby technologicalandotherecologicaldevelopments.Greateraccess to the labor market ends to increasecross-group nteractions,butthis does not assure that structural ssimilationwill soon follow. Initialspells ofintergrouponflict nresponse oincreasedoccupational ompetitionusuallyarise.Alba &Nee (1997) provideadetailedcomparisonof Gordon 1964) and Shibutani& Kwan(1965).Theliterature f fortyyearsago revealshowmovement owardsocial assimila-tion is stalled whenacculturations slow to develop.But even when acculturationmoves forward,some aspects of assimilation are resisted by groups who havedevelopedeffective social networksandinstitutions or generatingand distribut-ing scarce resourcesto groupmembers.Also, groupsthat are socially defined asracial minorities are especially slow to assimilatebecause of greaterresistance

333


9/32

334 SANDERSby the dominantgroup.Because the foreignness of an ethnic grouptends todeclinequickly nthesecondandsubsequentgenerations,he literature f the mid-twentiethcenturyoftenconcluded hattheimportance f theforeign originaspectof ethnicitywas declining,whereas ethnicidentity n terms of religion,race,andsocioeconomicstatus-particularlya subculturalworkingclass basis-was grow-ing. As many of the formerly nonwhite mmigrantgroups from Europehadundergonea social reconstruction f their race andnow were seen as white, racewas primarilya factorfor those descendingfromAfrica,smallgroupsof Asians,andHispanics-most of whom were Mexican Americans-for whom theidentityof Mexican arried he socialmeaningof nonwhite.

ETHNICITYAND RENEWED MMIGRATIONInasmuchasethnicitypartlyrelatesto the issue of foreign origins, t is not surpris-ing thatmost of thecontemporaryesearchaddressingssues of ethnicboundariesandidentity nvolvesgroupsthathave a relatively arge foreign-born ontingency.Withoutthe expansionof internationalmigrationduringthe post-WorldWarIIperiod,this new and voluminous iterature ould not haveemerged.Internationalmigration, egal and otherwise,is an important lement in the emergenceof in-creasinglyglobalizedeconomicrelationships Bonacich1993, Sassen 1988).Therise of foreign-born opulationsand heirchildren s transforminghe host societieseven as those host societies transform he migrantsand their children.It is thesemutually ransforming rocessesthataredrawing heattentionof scholars.Martin(1998) reportsthat 140 million people worldwide reside in countries other thanthatof theirbirth,andWeiner 1995) finds thatapproximately 0 millionrefugeesare displacedinto foreign countries. While some small European nternationalmigration lows areactually unmixing thnicpopulations, hat s, ethnicgroupsseparated ynationalbordersbecauseof wararenowre-merging hrough mmigra-tion (Brubaker1998), mostimmigrant treams ead to greater nterethnic ontact.The magnitudeof this demographicmakeover s an historical event with fewprecedents.Forexample,the UnitedStates,which receivesmoreimmigrants hanany other society, currentlyhas a populationthat is approximatelyone-tenthforeign born, with another one tenth of the populationaccounted for by theU.S.-bornchildrenof immigrants U.S. Census Bureau1999). There s enormousethnicdiversity n this immigration, ven among groupsthat sharepan-ethnic a-bels such asHispanic(Portes&Truelove1987),Arab(Abraham& Shryock2000,Naber2000), Iranian Der-Martirosiant al. 1993), and Asian (Kitano& Daniels2001). The foreign-stockdensities in urbanareasattractinghe most immigrantsoftenapproach r exceed the densitiesof immigrantmetropolises 100years ago(Waldinger& Bozorgmehr1996).Australiaand Canadaalsoprovidedramatic x-amplesof thedegreeto which nationaldemographys affectedbyinternationalmi-gration.Thepopulationof bothcountries s approximately ne-fifthforeignborn,with a comparableproportionof the populationmadeup of the native-born hil-drenof immigrantsZappala& Castles2000). SeveralWesternEuropean ountries


10/32

ETHNIC OUNDARIESNDIDENTITYalso have substantialandgrowingforeign-bornpopulations Martin1998). Thesepopulationmovementsgive rise to social and economicchanges in the host andsendingsocieties,which often eadtopoliticalcontroversyJoppke1999,Koslowski2000, Money 1999).

RENEWED IMMIGRATION AND THE REVISION OFTHE ETHNIC LITERATURE:ETHNIC BOUNDARIESAND IDEN'l'IY AS RESOURCESPerhaps hegreatestdistinctionbetweenthe ethnic iterature rior o the new immi-grationandthecontemporarythnic iteratures the former's ocusonthe assimila-tionperspectiveand the latter's ocus on pluralistperspectives.Gans(1997) offersa reconciliationof this difference.Theearlierresearchwas conductedon adultsec-ond and atergenerationsor whom it made sense to studycross-generationalrans-formations hat markedmovementtowardassimilation.These studies were alsousuallyconductedby out-groupmemberswho were influencedby assimilationistvalues.By contrast, hecontemporaryiterature asthusfarstudied heimmigrantgenerationandtheiryoungchildren.For thesegroups,a focus on ethnicdiversityis almost a given.There s yet little to studywithrespectto the cross-generationalexperiencesof adults.Further,Gans notes thatmanyof the scholarsof todayarein-groupmemberswho arelikely to be influencedby cultural-retentionistalues.Thecontemporaryiterature xamineshowalackof acculturation ndstructuralassimilation n the immigrantgenerationgives rise to social networksand institu-tionalized formsof collective actionthathelpovercomethe costs of immigrationand of minoritystatus.Hence,key disadvantagesdentified or earlier mmigrantsare now seen as conditions thatencourageforms of organizationand collectiveaction thatreducethe socioeconomic and emotionalcosts of immigration. nsteadof conceivingof the retentionof ethnicity mostly in terms of its liabilities,schol-ars examineways in which retainedethnicityis a mechanism or generatinganddisseminating esources.Fortheimmigrantgeneration, hefocus is on how socialcapitalderived from ethnic networks affects economic activities. For the secondgeneration, he focus is on how social capitalderivedfrom ethnicnetworkshelpsfamilies to rear their children in the host society. Initially,researchersconcen-tratedon the economic action of immigrants.Morerecently,studies of the secondgenerationhave become common.The earliest studiesalongthis revisedapproachwereaheadof theirtime in thatthey predatedmost of the new immigration. begin this partof the review withIvanLight's (1972) EthnicEnterprise nAmerica.Light argued hat demand forgoods and services in an ethniccommunitywas a form of ethnicboundarybecausethe consumer tastes of the groupcould best be understoodand met by in-groupmembers. Examinationof this protected-market ypothesisrevealed how ethnicenterprise ills these niches and how the marketsareprotectedby cultural Light1972) andecological barriers uch as residential egregation Aldrichet al. 1985).Another mportant ontributionby Lightwas in recognizingthe role of informal

335


11/32

336 SANDERScredit and savings associationsin helping prospectiveentrepreneurso acquirestartup apital.Withouta strongsense of interdependence mongin-groupmem-bersthatengenders rustandsolidarity,and allowsfor sanctions o be imposedonthose who violate the trustof others,it is difficultto envisionhow such institu-tionscould be successful.Whilesomeresearch uggeststhat heimportance f thisformof capitalizationmaybeexaggeratedMin 1996),others Light& Gold2000,Park1997) argue hat t is animportant ource of capital.Manyethnicbusinesseshavebeen capitalizedby a combinationof moneyraisedthrough nformalcreditand savings associations,personalsavings, informalpersonalloans, and formalloans from co-ethnic-controlledendinginstitutions n the host society (Portes&Stepick1993,Yoon1997,Zhou1992).Thecollateral ortheseloans is sometimesthereputation f the borrower.Ethnicbusinessownersalso benefitfrominformalcreditarrangementswith co-ethnicwholesalers(Lee 2000).

Aldrich& Waldinger's 1990) review covers the ethnic entrepreneurshipit-eratureup to the late 1980s. The paper s exceptionallythorough n consideringresearchconducted n manycountries.One of the importantpointsmadeby thisliterature s that ethnic entrepreneurshipmust expandbeyond the ethnic com-munityand serve out-groupmembers f it is to maximizeits economic potential(Aldrichet al. 1983, Light 1972). Without such expansion,the scale of ethnicentrepreneurships limitedby the size and wealthof the ethnicconsumerbase.Itis not surprising, herefore, hat the examinationof ethnicentrepreneurservingoutsidershas generatedan insightful iterature.An early example is Loewen's ([1971] 1988) study of how Chinese labor-ers in Mississippimobilizedtheirfamily and ethnic-basedresourcesandmovedinto a middlemanminorityrole. In this middlemanrole, the Chinesemoved upthe economic ladder,and they gained other social-statusadvantages.The mid-dlemanminorityconcept was broughtto a wider audience two years later byBonicich (1973). Althoughthe heavy use of culturalexplanations n Bonicich'sversion of middlemanminorityentrepreneurshipas been criticized(see Aldrich&Waldinger1990,pp. 125-26), there s noquestioning heimportance f the workin pushingscholars to consider how ethnicboundariesand identitycan promoteupward ocioeconomicmobilityunderdifficultcircumstances.Bonacich&Modell's(1980) studyof threegenerationsof JapaneseAmericansrevealshow hostility from the dominantgrouptends to generatea defensivere-action from ethnic groups.In the case of the Japaneseon the U.S. west coast,this encouragedreactiveethnicsolidarityandstrengthened thnic boundariesandidentity.This strongsense of community, n turn,gave rise to cooperationandcollective actionthatgeneratedanddistributed roup-based esources,whichfa-cilitatedthe rise andexpansionof the Japaneseethniceconomy.This ethniceco-nomywas the basis of Japaneseupwardmobility prior o WorldWarII (Bloom &Riemer 1949). With the post-WorldWar II decline of hostility directedtoward

the Japanese,ethnicboundariesand identityfaded,andrapidmovementtowardassimilation ollowed (Montero1981).However,participationn ethnicvoluntaryorganizations emainedcommon for severalyears(Fugita& O'Brien 1985).


12/32

ETHNIC OUNDARIESNDIDENTITYSociological interest n ethnic economies was partof a largerscholarly nterestin economic segmentation.A cornerstoneof this literaturewas Averitt's(1968)The Dual Economy,which conceptualizeda crudedichotomybetweenperipheryandcenter firms in the United States. This dualisticconceptionof economicpro-cesses led to a parallelconceptionof segmentationn the labormarket.This viewsaw the labor market as divided into a primarymarketwhere opportunities oradvancementwereprevalentand a low-wage secondarymarketwith little oppor-tunity for advancement.Hodson & Kaufman(1982) review this literature.Theconceptualization f segmented abormarkets ook hold in theethnicity iterature.Recognitionthatsome westerncapitalisticeconomieswereopeningtheirbordersbecauseof the need forlow-wage labor(Burawoy1976,Piore 1979, Sassen-Koob1978) increasedscholarlyinterest n the rangeof economic optionsencounteredby internationalmigrants.Concludingthatthese opportunitieswere limited,re-

searchersbeganto questionwhethersome groupsmightbe able to takeadvantageof unoccupiedniches and establish smallbusinesscommunities.At the sametime, another nterpretation f social stratification,he conceptofinternalcolonialism (Blauner 1972, Hechter1975), was drawingattention.Thisargument uggestedthat ethnicenclosure led to heightenedgroupconsciousnessand increasedthe likelihood of collective mobilization. Otherscholarsproposeda counterargument o the effect thatethnic awareness,groupsolidarity,and thepotentialfor collective mobilizationgrow strongerunderconditions of contactandcompetitionwith adominantgroup(Hannan1979).A variantof this view wasproposedbyBergesen& Herman 1998), whofoundthat hesuccession of variousgroupsof HispanicsandAsians in previouslyAfrican-Americanneighborhoodsinstigatedethnicawarenessandsolidarity,and led to conflict.The importanceof the simultaneousscholarlyattraction o economic dualismand to the social conditionsthat fuel the retentionof strongethnicidentities wasthat it motivatedscholars to explore how the economic advancementof ethnicgroups might be generatedin a context of economic segmentationand ethnicawareness.Just how profoundly his emergingway of thinkingabout the role ofethnic boundariesandidentity, n conjunctionwith the new wave of internationalmigrants,was to affect studies of ethnic stratification s ironicallyconveyed inanearlyarticleby AlejandroPortes.Afterstudying48 Cubanrefugeefamilies inMilwaukee,Portes(1969, pp.516) concluded: Longerperiodsof residence n theUnited Stateswill inevitablyweaken old culturalandpsychologicalattachmentsand offer broaderopportunities or socioeconomic progressfor the majorityofrefugeesin theirnewenvironment.... Unless there s a majorpoliticalchange,[anoverthrowof the Castroregime]the fate of those migrating o the United Statesas a result of the Cuban Revolutionseems to be an eventualassimilation,andhence disappearance s a social entity... leaving behind,perhaps,some culturalimprintson Miamiand a few other U.S. cities.

Clearly,much haschangedsince 1969. In theearly 1970s,a longitudinal tudywascommencedbyPortesandothers.Thisstudywould be awatershed vent inthestudyof ethnicstratification nd the importanceof ethnicboundariesand dentity.

337


13/32

338 SANDERSThe researchsitewas greaterMiami,butdataon acomparisongroupof migratingMexicanswho entered hroughTexaswere also collected.Theurbanenvironmentof Miamiwas becoming uniquein the UnitedStates.Due to the combinationofan increased nflow of Cubanrefugeesmadepossibleby diplomaticmaneuvering,themovementof Cubans-who werealready n the United States-to Miami,andwhite flight,thecities of Miami andnearbyHialeahwereon courseforbecomingCuban-majority ities (Portes & Stepick 1993). By the late 1970s, descriptiveanalyses were coming into print(Porteset al. 1977), but it was 1980 when thefirst theory-drivenempiricalanalyses were published.Focusing on the role ofethnicnetworks n generatingeconomicopportunities,Portes & Bach (1980) andWilson & Portes(1980) reportedon anemergingCubanenclaveeconomywherebusinesseswerebecomingverticallyandhorizontally ntegrated.A senseof ethnicsolidaritywas growing, and social boundariesfostered groupidentity.But thepictureof the economic advantagesof participatingn the enclave was initiallyunclear.Portes & Bachreportedhatworkingwith fellow Cubanrefugeesorotherminoritiesnegativelyaffectedearnings,while workingunder a Cuban boss hadno effect of earnings. By contrast,Wilson & Portesreported hat participationin the enclave economy gave rise to advantages n occupationalprestige, andoccupationalprestigeassociatedpositivelywithearnings.Therefore,participatingin the enclave was argued o increaseearnings ndirectly.The importanceof thislatter indingwas that t countered heecological hypothesisof assimilation heory,which contendsthat continuedspatialsegregation n terms of the labormarket,residentialpatterns,andsuch limits theupwardmobilityof ethnicgroups.Therefollowed severalpublicationsusing these data,and additionaldata col-lectedfrom the waveof Marielrefugees,thatbuilton segmented abormarketandethnic-solidarityheoriesto arguethat the enclaveshelteredparticipantsromtheharshconsequencesof working n the secondary abormarket see Portes & Bach1985). This literaturedemonstratedhat the Cubanenclave economy developedinto a dynamiceconomic engine drivenby the blendingof ethnic solidarityandrationaleconomic action.The social connectednessof the Cubancommunitywasa primeexample of how economic action is embeddedin more general socialrelations(Granovetter 985).Impressiveas it was, this literaturewas dissatisfyingin two ways. First,twoof the studies (Porteset al. 1980, Portes 1984) examiningCubanrefugees whohad been in the host society, for threeand six years respectively,contendedthatevidence in supportof the contactandcompetitionhypothesis(ethnicawareness,groupsolidarity,andthepotential or collectivemobilizationgrowstrongerunderconditionsof intergroup ontact andcompetition)constituteda contradictionofassimilation heory.This is clearlynot the case. Assimilation heory s framedas amultigenerational rocess,earlystagesof which includecompetitionandconflictas groupscome into contact.Initially,ethnicgroupsareexpectedto retainstrongidentities n the face of competition,andconflict is thegeneralpattern Park1926,Park & Burgess 1921,Shibutani& Kwan 1965). Second, the questionarose ofwhether the ecological hypothesisof assimilationtheorywas inconsistentwith


14/32

ETHNIC OUNDARIES NDIDENTITYthe experiencesof workers in the enclave. This questionled to spiriteddebate,sometimesmovingthe fieldtowarda convergenceof views andsometimesfailingto do so. The firstexchange(Nee & Sanders1987, Portes & Jensen1987, Sanders& Nee 1987)was initiatedby Sanders& Nee's criticismthatfailureto distinguishbetween self-employed Cubans and theiremployees accounted for why Portes& Bach (1980) found thatemploymentunder a co-ethnic had no effect on earn-ings andworkingwith fellow co-ethnics or otherminoritieswas associated withlower earnings,whereas Wilson & Portes(1980) found thatparticipatingn theenclavewas associatedwithrelativelyhighoccupationalprestige.Sanders& Neecontended hat hepositiveassociationbetweenparticipatingn theenclave andoc-cupationalprestigewas largelydue to theoccupationalprestigeof businessownersrather hanthat of theiremployees.Hence,businessownersbenefitedfinanciallyfromparticipatingn a densely co-ethnicregionaleconomy just as earliergroupshad(Bonacich& Modell 1980,Light 1972), but theiremployeeswereunlikelytoexperiencesuch a benefit.The firstexchangedid not end in a consensusview. Indeed,the debatewas re-joinedbyPortes& Jensen 1989).Unfortunately,hispaperwasfraughtwithanum-ber of data-managementrrors,misreported perationaldefinitions,andsamplingproblems see Sanders& Nee 1992).These errors ed to erroneous indings.Aftermakingthenecessarycorrections,however,Portes& Jensen(1992) confirmedanearningsadvantageamongbusiness owners n the enclaveand no comparablead-vantage orCuban mployeesintheenclave.Thus,Portes&Jensen 1992, pp.420)acknowledged Our[Portes& Jensen1989]positionis weakenedby the findingsof a netnegativemaineffect of enclaveemploymenton maleearningsand a lesserreturn or yearsof education. Althoughthey went on to arguethat suchfindingsdidnot show a clearpatternof disadvantageor enclaveworkers, hegapbetweenthe debating partieswas attenuated.This debatebroughta much needed sober-ing perspectiveto the studyof how ethnic boundariesand identityfacilitate thedevelopmentof ethniceconomicengines. Enclaveeconomies, like other market-drivensystems, not only generatewealth, they also generatestratification.Thus,the economic actions of the new immigrants houldnot be overlyromanticized.The fieldrespondedby concentratingess on any supposedearningsadvantagethe ethnic enclave providedto employees and more on how ethnic boundariesandidentitycould facilitate nternal orms of social organizationandinstitutionalbehavior hatincreasedemployees' chances of becomingself-employed,therebyincreasingtheir chancesfor economic gain.Bailey & Waldinger 1991) madeanimportantbreakthroughn regardto how ethnic enclaves encouragethe growthof entrepreneurship. hey showed how informalethnic networksin New YorkCity's Chinese-ownedgarment ndustrywereessential forproviding nformationto employers that allowed them to maximize their chances of recoupingtheircosts of trainingemployees, and these same networksprovidedemployees withinside information hat ncreased heir chances of becoming self-employed.Morerecently,Raijman& Tienda(2000) reportthat Koreans n Chicago also benefitfrom an informaltraining system, whereasMexicans,who lack a strongethnic

339


15/32

340 SANDERSeconomy, are more reliant on informalself-employmentfor learningthe ropesof conductinga successful business. Min & Bozorgmehr(2000) and Leonard& Tibrewal(1993) also document a varietyof strategies ollowed by Asian andMiddle-Easternmmigrantsn pursuing elf-employment.Ona less positivenote,Kim (1999, pp. 599) findsthe Koreaneconomy in New YorkCity has been, in asense,too successful in its informal rainingof co-ethnics. Koreansareturning oLatino labor because the sameco-sponsorshipmechanism hattrainedco-ethnicworkers o moveout andopenuptheirown businessesdroveupthecost ofco-ethniclabour and introducedcompetition. mmigrant ntrepreneurs perating n poorminorityneighborhoodsappearto be increasinglyturningto African-Americanand Latinoemployees(Lee 1998).By the early 1990s, the literatureseemed to have convergedon the impor-tance of ethnic enclaves as an engine to increase self-employmentand therebyto increaseopportunities or upwardmobility.Soon, however,scholarsbegantosuggest caveats to this theme. Forexample,Sanders& Nee (1996) showed howthe familywas importanto ethnicenterprise,much as it had been in earlier imes(Bloom & Riemer 1949, Bonacich & Modell 1980, Loewen [1971] 1988). Song(1997) confirmed he importanceof the family for Chinese-ownedbusinesses intheUnitedKingdom.Thefamilyis a strategicresource n ethnicentrepreneurshipbecause the social ties it embodies tend to be the most intenseandtrustevokingof all interpersonal elationships Fukuyama1995). This is not to say that eth-nic boundariesandidentityareunimportantor the generationof ethnic businesscommunities-they are important.But the literature, n showing a tendencytofocus on the ethnicgroupas the only collectivityof importance,was overlookingthe role of the smaller,moretightlyintegrated, ocial institutionof the family.Anotheraddition o the literature t this time was the recognition hat the eco-nomicbenefitsof self-employmentmayhave been overplayed.Borjas(1986) andotherseitherchallengedthe evidence that ethnic small-businessownersexperi-enced an earningsadvantage,or they arguedthat much of the economic benefitof ethnic self-employmentwas due to the demographicadvantagesof businessowners and to their self-exploitationby workinghoursthat constitutedholdingtwo full-time obs. Othershadrecognizedthelonghoursof work oftenrequiredofethnicentrepreneurs,utthe literature enerallyregardedhis to be oneof the costsof economic successthrough elf-employment Min 1990).Portes& Zhou(1996)challenged heargumenthatethnicself-employmentailed toproduceanearningsadvantage.They found a substantialadvantage o self-employment,butthey alsofound this advantageconcentrated mong unusuallysuccessfulentrepreneurs.Threemeasurementssuescomplicatestudiesof ethnicenterprise.First, denti-fying the self-employedandobtainingaccuratemeasuresof theirearningscan bedifficult(Light& Rosenstein1995). Second,distinctionsbetweenentrepreneurialand nonentrepreneurialelf-employmentare hard to operationalize(Aldrich&Waldinger1990). Third,the literature'sdefinitionsof ethnic economies anden-claves have been inconsistent.Regarding his latterissue, Light & Gold (2000)suggest three conceptualdistinctions.The first is the combination of business


16/32

ETHNIC OUNDARIESND IDENTITYowners, unpaid family labor, and paid co-ethnic employees (ethnic ownershipeconomy).The second includesthe first,but addsthe requirement f spatialclus-tering(enclaveeconomy).Thethirdpointsto occupationaland ndustrial mploy-ment (not businessownership)niches where the overrepresentationf an ethnicgroup enables its membersto benefit from the advantagesof infonnrmalontrol(ethnic-controlled conomy). Regardlessof the terminology,all variantsconveya sense of economic action embedded in solidaristic,co-ethnic social relations.As such, ethnic boundariesand the preservation f ethnic identityare importantfor the continuedfunctioningof these economic systems. As long as a groupis renewedthrough mmigration, here is a foreign-bomcomponentwith limitedoptions,for whomparticipatingn anethniceconomycan be important.fan immi-grationstreamdriesup,however, t is unclearhow well current thniceconomieswill persist. Will they offer attractiveopportunities o the children and grand-childrenof immigrantsand therebybecome transformednto native-born thniceconomies?

MAINTAINING ETHNIC BOUNDARIES AND PASSINGON GROUP IDENTITY TO THE NATIVE OFFSPRINGZhou (1997) reviews the literatureon how boundarymaintenanceand the inter-generationalransmission f ethnic dentity acilitate amilyandcommunity ffortsto encourageacademicachievement,and to discouragedelinquency,amongtheyoungergeneration.Consequently, limitmy comments o a few importantssues.The childrenof immigrantsike theirparentsareethnicallydiverse,geographi-cally concentratedn the host society,and characterized y a greatdeal of within-and across-groupvariation n socioeconomic backgrounds.This lattervariationmay portend ong-termstratification mongthe offspringof theimmigrantgener-ation.Forexample,Hirschman& Falcon(1985) found aggingeducationalattain-ment amongthe fourth and fifthgenerationstock of earlier mmigrantswho hadacquired ittle education.By contrast, heyfoundsuperioreducationalattainmentamongsecondgenerationchildrenwho had well-educatedparents.This bifurca-tion will probablybecome exacerbated f economicrestructurings squeezingoutopportunitiesor the middleclass (Gans 1992, Portes & Zhou 1993).We do not know if the new centurywill witness expandingor contractingopportunities or middle-classlifestyles. If the economic opportunities ontract,however, mmigrant hildren's ife chancesmayincreasinglydependonthedegreeto which their families and ethnic communitiesare successful in drawingon thesocial controlpropertiesof ethnicboundariesandidentityto encourageacademicexcellence and the avoidanceof delinquency.Gibson& Ogbu(1991) suggesttheselectivityof voluntary mmigrantsmay explainthe high academic achievementand ow levels of antisocialbehaviorcharacteristic f somegroups.Thisargument,however,seems to fit poorlywith studies that find the childrenof refugees, suchas CubansandVietnamese,oftenrespond avorably o the social capital nputsof

341


17/32

342 SANDERStheirfamilies andethniccommunity,and achievesuccess in school (Portes& Hao1998, Zhou& Bankston1998).Poor educationalattainmentand delinquencyare often described as partofan oppositional outhculture Ogbu1978). Examplesof an oppositionalyouthculturespreading nto the new immigrant tock arefoundin Zhou& Bankston's(1998) studyof Vietnamesechildren n New Orleans;Waters's 1999) New YorkCity studyof West Indians from variousEnglish speakingsocieties; Rumbaut's(1994) study of Asians, LatinAmericans,and West Indians in Miami and SanDiego;Pessar's(1987) analysisof Dominicans;Portes&Stepick's(1995) analysisof Haitians;and studies of MexicanAmericanyouth (Suarez-Orozco& Suarez-Orozco1995).Gans(1992) andPerlmann&Waldinger1997) identifypatternsofsecond-generation ownwardmobilitythatappear o be partlydue to apaucityofemploymentopportunitiesandpartlythe result of an oppositionalyouthculture.However,Perlmann& Waldingercontend that socializationencouragingoppo-sitional behavior can arise from a working-class mmigrantexperiencewith noexposure opoornativeminorities.This contrasts harplywithproponents f seg-mentedassimilation Portes& Zhou1993, Zhou& Bankston1998) who identifypoor native minorities as the source of oppositionalyouth culture. Perlmann&Waldinger rgue hisyouthculture s betterunderstood s aworking-class econd-generationrevolt against limited opportunitiesratherthan as a native minoritycultural orm. Neckermanet al. (1999) also criticize the segmentedassimilationthesis for being too narrow n its attribution f the sources of peer influence thatlead some children of immigrants o reject their family's ethnic identitywhileself-identifyingwith those engagedin oppositional ifestyles.Self-identitymay be fluid,but the extent to which ethnic identityis optionalvariesby race. Waters 1994) finds thatdark-skinnedWest Indianchildrenhaveseverely limited options with regardto ethnic identity.This obtainsdespite theeffortsof manyWestIndians o resistbeingidentifiedas AfricanAmerican Waters1999, Vickerman1999) and to maintaindistinctresidential enclaves (Crowder1999). Similarly,middle-class and affluentsecond-generationAsian Indianswithdark skin find it difficult to avoid racial marginalitydespite efforts to conveyalternative dentities(Rajagopal2000). This lack of optionscontrasts harplywithlighter-skinned roups, particularlybiracial childrenwho have one Asian parent(Xie & Goyette 1997).Not only may middle-classstanding ail to deflect raciallabeling,childrenex-periencing hemarginality f straddlingwo or more cultural ontextssufferemo-tionally, and this fuels intergenerationalonflict (Rangaswamy2000, Rumbaut1994,Zhou& Bankston1998). Such conflict canreducethe influenceof the fam-ily and ethnic community, herebyweakeningethnic boundariesand increasingthe chances that schoolpeerswill strongly nfluence dentity.While this can leadchildren n affluent choolsto embracewhattheyperceiveto be white middle-classculture,alternative dentitiesmay emergein ethnicallyheterogenous chools.Forexample, Kibria(1997) contends that a pan-Asian American ethnic identity isshowing signs of emergingamong middle-classsecond-generation outh. Also,


18/32

ETHNIC OUNDARIESND IDENTITYPortes& MacLeod(1996) find somesupport or the rise of apan-Hispanicdentity,but this identityis characteristicof poor children with low educationalachieve-ments and ow self-esteem. The rise of apan-ethnic dentityamongdisadvantagedyouth may havevery differentconsequencesthanpan-ethnic dentityamongad-vantagedyouth.The family exertsstrong nfluences on the identitiesthat childrenadopt(Alba1990, Waters1990), but the socioeconomic conditions of the immigrantgener-ation are important or understandinghis process. The children of middle- andupper-class amilies often attend schools where the peer groupinfluence of fel-low students s presumablyunlikelyto carrya heavy dose of oppositionalyouthculture.Sampsonet al. (1999) findaffluentneighborhoodsare most conducive tothe generationof extrafamily ocial capital.Consequently,when families in poorneighborhoodsattemptto draw on groupresources to reinforce their children'sethnic identityandto encourageacademicexcellence, they may find little assis-tance. However,some of the missing pieces in the social organizationof poorneighborhoods re ustthetypesof organizationhat mmigrant roupssometimesformdespite their difficult circumstances.For example,groupnorms for sharedchild control andhigh parentalexpectationandoversightof children'sacademicperformance tronglyassociate with the schoolperformanceof Asians of variousethnicities(Goyette & Xie 1999). Indeed,Portes & MacLeodreportthat socialcapital has strongeffects in poor inner-cityschools as well as in middle-classschools.Nonetheless,thedegreeto which studentsbenefitfromfamilyand ethnicinfluencesvariesgreatlyacrossgroups Wojtkiewicz& Donato1995).Thepoorestethnic communitieshave a limitedcapacityto generateanddistribute esources othe nextgeneration.Menjivar's 2000) analysisof Salvadoranmmigrantnetworksin the United States indicates that this situation s a seriousstumblingblock. Thedegreeof agroup'ssocioeconomicdegradationmaybe moreimportanthanracialbarriersn affectingchildren'seducationalandoccupationaloutcomes. For exam-ple, among groupsthatusuallybecome identifiedas AfricanAmericans,Kalmijn(1996) found second generationBritish West Indians tended to avoideda down-wardspiral.These childrenface serious racialbarriers,but theirfamilies are notoften as impoverishedas Salvadoran amilies.Wemight expectparents'abilityto facilitatetheirchildren'sacademicsuccesswould be hinderedby the languagebarrier.However,Mouw & Xie (1999) havefoundthat hispotentialproblemcan be minimizedby bilingualchildrencommuni-catingwith theirmonolingualparents n the sending society's language.Bankston& Zhou (1995) reportthat bilingualism among Vietnamese studentspositivelyassociates with school performance.They interpret his as a reflectionof the in-tergenerationalransferof ethnicidentityand theresultingwillingnessof childrento conform to parentalandcommunityexpectations.Warren's1996) analysisofMexican-originand whitenon-Hispanicyouthsalso documents hatbilingualismassociates with favorableschool outcomes.Bilingualism amongMexican-originyouthalso associatespositivelywiththedevelopmentof instrumental ies to insti-tutionalagentssuch as guidancecounselors,which have the potential o facilitate

343


19/32

344 SANDERSpostschool success (Stanton-Salazar& Dombusch 1995). Although Rumberger& Larson(1998) fail to find an association between school gradesandSpanish-speakingstudents'acquisitionof English skills, they do find such acquisition srelated o matriculationowardgraduatingromhighschool. SomeHispanicgroupshaverelativelyhighratesof retaining heirparents'homelanguageascompared oAsiangroups(Portes& Hao 1998,Hao & Bonstead-Bums1998).The retentionofSpanish,however,does notequatewithfailingto move towardEnglishproficiency(Portes& Schauffler1994).

THE ETHNIC CHURCH AS A HUB OFSOCIAL ORGANIZATIONOne of the moreimportant thnic bases of social organizationpertains o churchattendance Pozzetta1991, Shin 2000). The institutionof the church s centraltobothreligiousand secularexpressionsof collective action. Asian immigrantsareoften Christians ndtheirchurches requentlyhave anevangelicaldimension Yang1998b),but this does not mean ethnic churchesare an instrument f assimilation.Rather, hese churchespromotea sense of the communityand ethnic awarenesswhileencouragingacculturationMin 1992,Wamer& Wittner1998).Schisms arecommonanddivisive to thecommunity Shin& Park1988,Yang1998a),butthesequarrels end not to pushmembersawayfrom the ethniccommunityas a whole.However, he younger generation s morelikely than elders to lose interest n theethnic churchwhen it is rockedby factionalism Yang1999). Inan effortto retaintheparticipation f theyoungergeneration, hurchesoftenmakeaccommodationssuchas providing or separate ervices in the languageof the host society.Ethnicchurches ill a crucial role in family andcommunityefforts to socializetheyoungergenerationnways thatareconsistentwith traditional oles. As partofthese efforts,the social web makingup the churchcommunityattempts o instillin the youth a sense of obligationto performwell in school so to bringhonor tothefamilyandto the ethniccommunity.Churchandcommunitygroupsencourageacademicexcellenceby publicly recognizingstudentswho achievehighly andbyprovidingscholarships.As Zhou & Bankston 1998, pp.99) conclude, Given tscentrality,hechurchservesas aprimarymechanism orintegrating oung peopleinto thecommunity'ssystemof ethnic relations.There is also interest n how religious activities influence the social and eco-nomicexperiencesof variousgroupsfrom LatinAmerica(Hunt 1999). SimilartoAsian Christianchurches,there is a strong evangelicalinfluence in the growingProtestantism f Hispanics.Ingeneral,researchs documenting he central mpor-tance of religious institutions or manynew immigrantgroups(Yang& Ebaugh2001). Accordingto Rajagopal 2000) andRangaswamy 2000), the social bondswithin variousIndianreligioussubgroupsspreadaround he United Statesallowfor thereproductionf important spectsof traditional ulture,ncludinga religio-cultural dentity.In this way,religiousties, notjust place-of-worship ies, facili-tatethe maintenance f ethnic boundariesandidentity.For some groups,religious


20/32

ETHNIC OUNDARIESND IDENTITYidentitycarries more weight than ethnic identity.Forexample,Jacobson(1997)and Saeed et al. (1999) report hatamong youngBritishorScottishPakistanis, heidentityof beinga Muslim is paramounto anyother dentity.Naber(2000) reportsa similarfinding n the United States.A specialissue onreligionandethnicityhasrecentlybeenpublished n Ethnic and Racial Studies(Jacobsonet al. 1997).

REGIONAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD CONCENTRATIONSStudiesof variousgroupsin the United Statesfind that ethnicidentityis stronglyshapedby the location of settlement(Gold 1995, Lessinger 1995, Mahler1995,Pessar 1995). Regional and neighborhoodconcentrationsof ethnic groups pre-sumablyfacilitatethe maintenanceof social boundariesandethnicidentity.Alba(1990) andHarris 1995) find thestrongestethnic dentitiesarederived romchild-hood socializationexperiences n ethnic communities.However, t is often the casethatamongmiddle-classAsians,theembracingof ethnic dentity akes asharp urnupwardatcollege wherelargenumbersof co-ethnics arelikely to be present(Min& Kim 2000, Rangaswamy2000). Waters 1999) reportsthe same thing amongWest Indianhigh-schoolyouth,and moregenerallyWaters 1990) finds that eth-nic awareness ends to heightenin young adulthood,especiallywhen youngstersmove out of theirparents'home. How strongandlong lastingthis spikein ethnicidentity provesto be needs to be studied as native-borngenerationsage.In the past, spatialconcentrationsof ethnic groupshave slowed the assimila-tionprocess(Yanceyet al. 1976). Spatialassimilation heory,which contendsthatacculturation ndinitialupwardmobility precedesresidentialmobilitytoward heneighborhoodsof predominantlywhite non-Hispanics,has received a good dealof support(Loganet al. 1996), althoughsome questionthese findings(Fong &Wilkes 1999). Alba et al.'s (1997) study of white ethnic neighborhoodsaroundNew YorkCity found the persistenceof ethnicconcentrations, specially amongItalianAmericans,into the 1970s. However,the ethnic distinctiveness of theseneighborhoodssubsequentlydeclined. In two recentstudies, Alba et al. (2000,1999) have found thatlarge-volume mmigrationof various Asian and Hispanicgroupsmodifiesthespatialassimilationprocessinthatwhitenon-Hispanicmajori-ties in suburban eighborhoods ometimesdecline to thepointwhereprofessionalandmiddle-classimmigrantsare in the majority,or at least constitutea largemi-nority.These environmentsosterethnic boundaries nd dentity,andtheyreshapethe culturalcontent of the suburbanmainstreamFong 1994).Socioeconomic resourcesappear o be the most importantdeterminant f whe-thermembersof Asian and Latinogroupsreside in ethnicallyconcentrated nnercity neighborhoods.Professionalandmiddle-class mmigrantsothe United Statesquicklyestablish hemselves nsuburban reas Alba&Logan1991,Zhou&Logan1991).Thoseinitially ess advantaged reslower to reachsuchneighborhoods,butFunkhouser 2000) finds a generalmovementaway from primaryenclave areastowardareaswith fewerco-ethnics.These moves often takeplace20 or moreyearsafter mmigration.ManystudiesfindAfricanAmericansare argelyexcluded rom

345


21/32

346 SANDERSthespatialassimilationprocess,whereasother argeminoritygroupsareincluded.However,Betancur(1996) arguesthat Latinos in Chicago face exclusion thatissimilarto the experiencesof African Americans.

TRANSNATIONALISMInterestin how ethnic boundariesand identity may be maintained n the hostsociety leads researchers o studythe transnationalism f internationalmigrantsand theiroffspring.Transnationalisman takeon a literal dimensionin the formof circularmigrationinvolving frequentvisits to the home society, but it canalso have a more figurativedimensionwherein immigrantsand their offspringkeep in frequentcommunicationwith the home society althoughnot necessarilyvisiting in person.While both formsof transnationalism ave been practicedbyearliermigrants Gabaccia2000, Zenner2000), technologicaladvanceshavemadetransnationalismcommon eature nthelives of the newimmigrantsFoner2000).Several scholars(Baschet al. 1994, Foneret al. 2000, Ong 1999) believe thattransnationalisms increasing he incidence of stronglyheld dual orpluralethnicidentities.This includes well-educatedmiddle-class mmigrants Lessinger1995)and those who are poorlyeducatedandimpoverished Pessar1995). One of themoreintriguing ssues addressed n this literatures the degreeto whichpoliticalprocesses n boththesendingandreceivingsocieties are nfluencedbyimmigrants'transnationalonnections(Itzigsohn2000, Kasinitz1992, Owusu2000). Relatedto thisis whatSoysal (2000) views as a growing endency orEuropean itizenshipand dentity o takeon universalistic ttributeshatspannationalborders.To the de-greetransnationalthnicgroups ail todevelopseriousattachmentso thehost soci-ety,the social cohesionof immigrant-receivingocietiesmaybe weakened.Whilesome contendthis scenariomay be comingto fruition(Schlesinger1998), othersrejectsuchargumentsLahav2000). Ethnicand Racial Studiesrecentlydedicateda specialissue to transnationalismPorteset al. 1999).Thepapers n this collectiongive little credenceto the thesis thattransnationalisms a threat o host societies.Transnationalism as given rise to transnational ommunities-that is, socialnetworksthat stretch aroundthe world (Portes 1996). These networksinvolveeconomicandsociallinkages, he formerusuallyembeddedn thelatter,andreflectthe current tate of economicglobalizationand the capacityof people to operatecompetently n more than one socioculturalcontext.Remittancebehavior s onewidespread orm of linkagebetween those in the receivingsociety and those leftbackhome (Lianos 1997, Menjivaret al. 1998). In addition o remittances,othertypes of migradollars lso indicate the strong social connectionsmaintainedbetweeninternationalmigrantsand thoseremaining n the home society (Durandet al. 1996). Nonmonetary ocialremittances lsoreveal he transnationalharacterof immigration(Levitt 1998). Ethnic churchesprovideanothermechanismfortransnationalnfluences(Yang& Ebaugh2001). Transnationalies areimportantfor immigrant ntrepreneurships well as for labormigration Kyle 2000, Lightet al. 1993). Among the new Asians in the United States,transnational etworks


22/32

ETHNIC OUNDARIESNDIDENTITYhave been important n the developmentof Korean(Chin et al. 1996, Light &Bonacich 1988) and Chinese businesscommunities(Fong 1994, Zhou 1992).Many scholars find gender differences in transnationalism.For example,Kanaiaupuni2000) examineshowpushandpullfactorsaffecting migration romMexico to the UnitedStates differfor women and men.Hagan(1998) and Kibria(1993) alsoreportgenderdifferences n how socialnetworkschangeover time andaffect the settlementof Mayas(Houston)and Vietnamese(Philadelphia), espec-tively.Genderdifferences n how ethnic networksoperatemay sometimes benefitwomen (Kibria)and sometimesbenefit men (Hagan).Kofman(1999) studiesthediverseinternationalmigrationof women in Europe;Pessar(1995) providesanexaminationof how genderissues influence the migrationof Dominicans;Ortiz(1996) analyzes he determinants f immigration mongwomen from PuertoRico.Although he literature s repletewithargumentshat ransnationalisms givingrise to widespreadandintenselyheld dual orpluralethnicidentity,otherssuspectthe literatures once againgoing overboardon whatis otherwisean informativeconcept.Faist(2000) takesa cautiousposition,arguing hatthe effects of transna-tionalism on cultural dentityand citizenshiphave not been adequatelystudied.He encouragesscholars to consider threemain mechanisms of transnationalism(reciprocity,solidarity,and exchange), and the correspondenceof these mecha-nisms to threetypes of transnationalocial spaces (kinshipties, groupties basedonsolidarity,andthe circulationof goods, people,and nformation).Waters 1999,pp. 92) suspects the notion of a transnationaldentityor a transnational ulturalspaceis quite exaggerated. t is notthat ransnationalxperiencesareirrelevantnthe daily lives of immigrantsand theirchildren,but theseexperiencesmaynotbeproducingethnicgroupsthat are so emotionally,culturally,andeconomicallytiedto theirhomeland hatultimatemovement owardassimilation ails to materialize.Such movement,of course, is mostly relevantto the offspringof the immigrantgeneration.For the nativegenerations, hequestion s whether heirgroup'ssocialnetworks,reinforcedby transnational onnections,will providescarce social oreconomicresourcesandtherebyencourageparticipationn the ethniccommunity.

CONCLUSIONThe literature ddressing thnic boundariesand dentity npluralsocieties focuseson social networksandthe social capitalderivedfrom them. Social networksthatprovidescarceresourcesto a wide spectrumof the ethniccommunityarehighlyuseful to in-groupmembers.To the extent valuableresourcesaregeneratedwithinthe group,relativelyclosed ethnic boundaries an protectthese resourcesby pre-servingtheir use for in-groupmembers. But when ethnic networksappropriateresources,such as access to jobs, from outside the community,ethnic boundariesbecomemoreporousbecauseimportant pheresof life, such as work,necessitategreater nvolvementwith outsiders.With or without the assistance of ethnic net-works,large-scalemovement hroughethnicboundariesn searchof betteroppor-tunitiesdoes notimplyan ethnicgroup ails togenerateresources,but t doesimply

347


23/32

348 SANDERSthe relative value of those resourcesis widely viewed as inferior to alternativesavailable n the broadersociety. When social boundaries ake on less of a gate-keeperfunctionprotectingethnically generatedresourcesand moreof a bridgingfunctionencouraginggreater ntergroup ssociation, heidentity-preservingnflu-ence of ethnic boundaries s likelyto decline(Nee et al. 1994).However,anysuchdevelopmentmay initiallybe markedby conflict due to competitionandexploita-tion, or perceptionsof competitionand exploitation(Shibutani& Kwan 1965).The literature xamines themaintenance f ethnic boundariesand the retentionofethnicidentitymainlythrough wo lines of inquiry.One is economic actionamongadultsandthe other s schoolingandyouthsocialization.Research eaves little doubtas to the mportance f socialcapitalderived hroughethnic networks n promotingeconomic action. The growthof ethnicenterpriseis the main accomplishmentof economic action embeddedin ethnic social re-lations. For those unable to acquiregood jobs because of languagedifficulties,a lack of fungiblehumancapital,or otherreasons,self-employment s often anattractiveoption. Ethnicenterprise s facilitatedby informaltrainingand lend-ing practices hat are untenablewithoutgroupsolidarityand the means to enforcenormativebehavior.The main imitation o this formof economicaction s theself-employmentcarryingcapacityof ethnicgroups.Inthe UnitedStates,forexample,most ethnicgroupshavelowerself-employment atesthando whitenon-Hispanicmen. Mostparticipantsn ethniceconomies,moreover,areself-employedbecausethe small scale of such businesses limits demand for employees (Light & Gold2000). Furthermore,he economic return o participatingn the ethnic economyfavorsbusinessowners,althoughself-employmentoften involves gruelingworkschedules withno financialsecurity.The evidence is more mixed withregard o the effectivenessof ethnic networksand social capital in facilitatingpositive schooling and socialization outcomesfor children.Family and communityefforts to pass on cultural values and toencourageacademicexcellence whilediscouragingdelinquencyappearo facilitatethe success of many youths, butmany othersfall by the wayside. Impoverishedcircumstancesassociate with a rangeof social conditions thatcomplicatefamilyandcommunityefforts to guide thedevelopmentof the nextgeneration.In studyingconnections between ethnic networks,boundaries,and identity,the literaturehas madesignificantprogress n explicatingprocessesof immigrantincorporationhrougheconomic action.This workpertainsmostly to those whoimmigratedas adults. Researchersare also beginningto makeprogress n study-ing the educationaland socializationexperiencesof the childrenof immigrants.As these two generationsmove through he life-cycle, what new researchdirec-tionsmightbe informative?Given thegrowingpresenceof middle-agedand olderimmigrants n manysocieties, researchopportunitiesareopening up for studiesof how ethnic networks,boundaries,and identityaffect elders in the immigrantgeneration.The focus on thisgenerationwill soon need to transform romempha-sizinghow ethnic communitiesgenerateresources hat facilitateeconomicactionto anemphasison how ethniccommunitiesmaybe able tofacilitatethe emotional


24/32

ETHNIC OUNDARIESNDIDENTITYandphysicalwell-being of those of retirementage. Relationshipsbetweenagingimmigrantsandtheir native-raisedoffspringwill be an important lement in thisline of research.

The focus of researchonthesecond(and 1.5)generationwill also need tochangeas time goes by.To the degreethe secondgenerationachieveswell educationally,occupationalopportunities eyondthe ethniceconomywill probablybe attractive.Yet economic action embedded n ethnic social relations is likely to persist intothe secondgeneration,and this line of inquiryneeds to be pursued.The extent ofparticipationn ethniceconomies,and how thisparticipation ompares n form tothe economic actionsof the firstgeneration, houldreceiveattention.As thesecondgenerationmatures, t will also be of interest o studyhowpeople'snon-economicinvolvement n theethniccommunityandtheirself-identitymay changeovertime,and how they may tryto pass along a sense of ethnicidentityto their children.Two characteristics f theimmigranttockoftenthought o indicate hedegree owhichethnicboundaries nd dentitypersevereare he retentionof thesendingsoci-ety's languageandexogamy.Researchcitedearlier howsthat nthe UnitedStates,Englishquicklybecomes theprimary anguageof children.Formanygroups, hereis little retentionof theparent'soriginal anguageexceptfor those whoimmigratedlate inchildhood.Bilingualismamong heimmigrant tock s mostcommonamongcertainSpanish-speakinggroups. Marriagedata are more limited given the agestructure f theimmigrant tock.In theUnitedStates,however,racialandethnicen-dogamyhavedeclined,especially amongwell-educatedpersons(Qian 1997).Out-

group marriagesappear o be highestfor various Asian groups,somewhat owerforLatinogroups,and owest for AfricanAmericans.Data for the earliestarrivinggroups of the new internationalmigrantsindicatea high incidence of second-generationexogamy. Among native-bornCubans in Florida,Arias (2001) findsonlyhalfmarryotherCubans native-orforeign-born).MostinterethnicmarriagesinvolvingCubansare to non-Hispanicwhites. Among manyAsian groupsin theUnitedStates,out-groupmarriages, ncludingmarriages o whitenon-Hispanics,are much more common for young adultnatives thanfor youngadult mmigrants(Qianet al. 2001). Studiesof the marriagepatternsandfamily life of the secondgenerationwill tell us muchabout heintergenerationalransferof ethnicidentity.The literature suallytreats he retentionof ethnicidentityas includingnothingmore thanself-identifyingorself-namingoneself as agroupmember Gans 1997).Sucha low-barstandardmeansthatethnic dentitycan be apermanent artof one'sidentity,althoughthe intensityof thatidentity may vary greatlyfrom context tocontext.Relatively ntense eelingsof ethnic dentityandserious nvolvementntheethniccommunityaremostlikelyto obtainwhen ethnicnetworkshave thecapacityto supplysocial goods that areotherwisein shortsupply.Under suchconditions,ethnic boundariesarelikely to be maintainedbecausethey protectvaluableformsof association.By contrast,weakerandmoresymbolicforms of ethnic dentityandcommunity nvolvementare likely to result when ethnic networks fail to supplyscarce social goods. Ultimately,the degree of ethnic-boundary losure and theextent o which ntenseethnic dentitypersists nplural ocieties reston thecapacity

349


25/32

350 SANDERS

of ethnic networks oprovidevaluableresources hatbenefita cross-sectionof theethniccommunity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTI amgrateful o Davida J.Weinberg orprovidingcommentson anearlierdraftofthispaper.

TheAnnual Reviewof Sociology is online at http://soc.annualreviews.orgLITERATURECI'TEDAbrahamN, ShryockA, eds. 2000. Arab De-

troit: FromMarginto Mainstream.Detroit:WayneStateUniv.PressAlba RD. 1990. EthnicIdentity:TheTransfor-mationof WhiteAmerica. New Haven,CT:YaleUniv. PressAlba RD, Logan JR. 1991. Variationson twothemes: racial and ethnic patterns n the at-tainment of suburban esidence. Demogra-phy 28:431-53Alba RD, LoganJR,CrowderK. 1997. Whiteethnic neighborhoodsand assimilation:thegreaterNew Yorkregion, 1980-1990. Soc.Forces75:883-912AlbaRD,LoganJR,Stilts BJ. 2000. Thechang-ing neighborhood ontexts of the immigrantmetropolis.Soc. Forces79:587-621AlbaRD,LoganJR,StiltsBJ,MarfanG,ZhangW. 1999. Immigrant roups n the suburbs:reexamination f suburbanizationndspatialassimilation.Am.Sociol.Rev.64:446-60AlbaRD,Nee V.1997.Rethinkingassimilationtheoryfor a new era of immigration. nt. Mi-grat.Rev.31:826-74AldrichHE,CaterJ,JonesT,McEvoyD. 1983.From periphery to peripheral:the SouthAsian petite bourgeoisiein England.In Re-search n theSociology of Work,d. IHSimp-son,R Simpson,2:1-32. Greenwich,CT:JAIPressAldrichHE,CaterJ,JonesT,McEvoyD, Velle-manP. 1985. Ethnicresidential oncentrationand the protectedmarkethypothesis. Soc.Forces63:996-1009AldrichHE, WaldingerR. 1990. Ethnicityand

entrepreneurship.nnu.Rev.Sociol. 16:111-35Arias E. 2001. Change in nuptialitypatternsamong Cuban Americans:evidence of cul-turaland structural ssimilation? nt.Migrat.Rev.35:525-56AverittRT.1968. TheDual Economy:TheDy-namicsofAmerican ndustryStructure.NewYork:Norton

Bailey T, WaldingerR. 1991. Primary, econ-dary,and enclave labor markets:a trainingsystemsapproach.Am. Sociol. Rev. 56:432-45Bankston CL Im, Zhou M. 1995. Effects ofminority-languageiteracyon the academicachievement f Vietnamese outh n New Or-leans. Sociol. Educ. 68:1-17BarthF. 1969. EthnicGroupsandBoundaries:The Social Organizationof CultureDiffer-ence. Boston:Little,BrownBaschL,Glick SchillerN, BlancCS,eds. 1994.Nations Unbound: TransnationalProjects,Postcolonial Predicaments,and Deterrito-rialized Nation-States. Basel: Gordon &Breach

Bergesen A, Herman M. 1998. Immigration,race,andriot: he 1992 LosAngelesuprising.Am. Sociol. Rev. 63:39-54BetancurJJ. 1996. The settlementexperienceof Latinos in Chicago:segregation,specula-tion,and the ecology model.Soc. Forces74:1299-324Blauner R. 1972. Racial Oppressionin Ame-rica. New York:Harper& RowBloom L, Riemer R. 1949. Removal and


26/32

ETHNICBOUNDARIESAND IDENTITY

Return: The Socio-EconomicEffects of theWar on Japanese-Americans. Berkeley:Univ. Calif. PressBonacich E. 1973. A theoryof middlemanmi-norities.Am.Sociol.Rev. 38:583-94BonacichE. 1993. Asian andLatino mmigrantsin the Los Angeles garment ndustry:an ex-plorationof the relationshipbetween capi-talism and racial oppression.See Light &Bhachu1993, pp. 51-73BonacichE,Modell J. 1980. TheEconomicBa-sis of Ethnic Solidarity:Small Business inthe Japanese-AmericanCommunity.Berke-ley: Univ. Calif. PressBoras GJ. 1986. The self-employmentexperi-ence of immigrants.J. Hum. Resour. 21:485-506Breton R. 1964. Institutionalcompletenessofethnic communities and the personalrela-tions of immigrants.Am.J. Sociol. 70:193-205BrubakerR. 1998.Migrationsof ethnicunmix-ingin the newEurope. nt.Migrat.Rev.32:1047-65BurawoyM. 1976. The function andreproduc-tion of migrant abor:comparativematerialfrom SouthernAfrica and the UnitedStates.Am.J. Sociol. 81:1050-87CaminoL, KrulfeldR, eds. 1994. Reconstruct-ing Lives, RecapturingMeanings:RefugeeIdentity,Gender,and CultureChange.Basel:Gordon& BreachChin KS, Yoon UI,Smith D. 1996. Immigrantsmall business and internationaleconomic

linkage:a case of the Koreanwig businessinLosAngeles, 1968-1977. Int.Migrat.Rev.30:485-510Choy CC. 2000. The exported to care : atransnationalhistory of Filipino nurse mi-gration o the United States. See Foneret al.2000, pp. 113-33ColemanJS. 1990. Foundationsof Social The-ory.Cambridge:BelknapComell S. 1996. The variable ties that bind:contentandcircumstancen ethnicprocesses.

Ethn. Racial Stud. 19:265-89CrowderKD. 1999. ResidentialsegregationofWest Indians in the New York/NewJersey

metropolitanarea: he roles of race andeth-nicity.Int.Migrat.Rev. 33:79-113Der-MartirosianC, SabaghG, BozorgmehrM.1993. Subethnicity:Armenians n Los An-geles. See Light& Bhachu1993,pp. 243-58DuncanOD, Duncan B. 1955. Residentialdis-tributionandoccupational tratification.Am.J. Sociol. 60:493-503DuncanOD,LiebersonS. 1959. Ethnicsegrega-tion and assimilation.Am.J. Sociol. 64:364-74DurandJ, ParradoEA, Massey DS. 1996. Mi-gradollarsand development:a reconsidera-tion of the Mexican case. Int. Migrat.Rev.30:423-44EspirituYL. 1992. Asian AmericanPanethni-city: Bridging Institutions and Identities.Philadelphia:TempleUniv. PressFaist T. 2000. Transnationalizationn interna-tional migration: mplicationsfor the studyof citizenshipandculture.Ethn.Racial Stud.23:189-222FonerN. 2000. FromEllis Island to JFK: NewYork'sTwoGreatWavesofImmigration.NewHaven/London:Yale Univ.Press/NewYork:RussellSage Found.FonerN, RumbautRG,GoldSJ,eds. 2000. Im-migrationResearchor a NewCentury:Mul-tidisciplinaryPerspectives.New York:Rus-sell Sage Found.Fong E, Wilkes R. 1999. The spatialassimila-tion model reexamined: an assessment byCanadiandata.Int.Migrat.Rev.33:594-620FongTP. 1994. TheFirstSuburbanChinatown:TheRemakingof MontereyPark,California.Philadelphia:TempleUniv. PressFugitaS, O'BrienD. 1985. Structural ssimila-tion,ethnicgroupmembership,andpoliticalparticipationamong JapaneseAmericans:aresearchnote.Soc. Forces 63:986-95

FukuyamaF. 1995. Trust.New York:FreePressFunkhouserE. 2000. Changes n thegeographicconcentrationand location of residence ofimmigrants.nt. Migrat.Rev. 34:489-510Gabaccia DR. 2000. Italy's Many Diasporas.Seattle:Univ.Wash.PressGans HJ. 1962. The Urban Villagers: Groupand Class in the Life of Italian-Americans.

351


27/32

352 SANDERS

New York:FreePress/London:Collier-Mac-MillanGansHJ. 1992.Second-generation ecline:sce-nariosfor theeconomicand ethnic futuresofthe post-1965 Americanimmigrants.Ethn.Racial Stud.15:173-92GansHJ. 1997.Towarda reconciliationof as-similation and pluralism :he interplayofacculturationand ethnic retention.Int. Mi-grat.Rev. 31:875-92GibsonMA,OgbuJU,eds. 1991.MinoritySta-tus and Schooling:A ComparativeStudyofImmigrantand InvoluntaryMinorities.NewYork:Garland

GlazerN. 2000. Onbeyondthemelting pot, 35yearsafter. nt.Migrat.Rev. 34:270-76GlazerN, MoynihanDP. 1963.Beyond heMel-tingPot: TheNegroes,PuertoRicans,Jews,Italians, and Irish of New YorkCity. Cam-bridge:MIT PressGold SJ. 1992. RefugeeCommunities:A Com-parative Field Study. Newbury Park, CA:SageGold SJ. 1995. From the Worker'sState to theGoldenState: Jewsfrom the Former SovietUnioninCalifornia.Boston:Allyn &BaconGordon MM. 1964. Assimilationin AmericanLife:TheRoleofRace, Religion,andNation-al Origins.New York:Oxford Univ. PressGoyetteK, Xie Y. 1999. Educationalexpecta-tions of Asian American youths: determi-nants and ethnic differences. Sociol. Educ.72:22-36GranovetterM. 1985. Economicaction and so-cial structure:heproblemof embeddedness.Am.J. Sociol. 91:481-510Greenlees CS, Saenz R. 1999. Determinantsof employmentof recentlyarrivedMexicanimmigrantwives. Int. Migrat.Rev. 33:354-77Grieco EM. 1998. The effects of migrationonthe establishmentof networks:caste disinte-grationand reformationamong the Indiansof Fiji.Int.Migrat.Rev. 32:704-36HaganJM. 1998. Social networks,gender,andimmigration incorporation:resources andconstraints.Am. Sociol. Rev. 63:55-67Hannan MT. 1979. The dynamics of ethnic

boundaries n modemstates.InNationalDe-velopmentand the WorldSystem, ed. JWMeyer,MT Hannan,pp. 253-75. Chicago:Univ.ChicagoPressHao L, Bonstead-BumsM. 1998. Parent-childdifferencesin educationalexpectationsandthe academic achievement of immigrantand native students. Sociol. Educ. 71:175-98HarrisD. 1995. Exploring he determinants fadultblack dentity: ontextandprocess.Soc.Forces74:227-41HechterM. 1975. Internal Colonialism: TheCeltic Fringe in British National Develop-ment, 1536-1966. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.PressHirschmanC. 1983. America'smeltingpot re-considered.Annu.Rev.Sociol. 9:397-23HirschmanC, Falcon L. 1985. The educationalattainmentof religio-ethnic groups in theUnited States. Res. Sociol. Educ. Social. 5:83-120HodsonR, KaufmanRL. 1982. Economic dua-lism: a critical review. Am. Sociol. Rev. 47:727-39HoltzmanJD. 2000. Dialing911 in Nuer:gen-dertransformations nddomesticviolence ina MidwesternSudaneserefugeecommunity.See Foneret al., pp. 390-407HowardJA. 2000. Socialpsychologyof identi-ties. Annu.Rev.Sociol. 26:367-93Hunt LL. 1999. HispanicProtestantismn theUnited States:trendsby decade andgenera-tion. Soc. Forces 77:1601-23

ItzigsohnJ. 2000. Immigrationandthebound-ariesof citizenship: he institutionsof immi-grants' political transnationalism. nt. Mi-grat.Rev. 34:1126-54JacobsonJ. 1997. Religion and ethnicity:dualand alternative sources of identity amongyoung British Pakistanis.Ethn. Racial Stud.20:238-56JacobsonJ,IchijoA, SmithAD, eds. 1997. Eth-nicity andreligion.Ethn. Racial Stud.(spe-cial issue) 20(2)JoppkeC. 1999. How immigrations changingcitizenship:acomparative iew. Ethn.RacialStud. 22:629-52


28/32

ETHNICBOUNDARIESAND IDENTITY

KalmijnM. 1996. The socioeconomic assimi-lation of Caribbeanblacks. Soc. Forces 74:911-30KanaiaupuniSM. 2000. Refraining he migra-tion question:an analysis of men, women,andgender n Mexico. Soc.Forces78:1311-48Kasinitz P. 1992. CaribbeanNew York:Black

Immigrantsand thePolitics of Race. Ithaca,NY: Comell Univ. PressKaufmanKA.2000.Outsourcinghe hearth: heimpactof immigrationon laborallocation nAmerican amilies. See Foneret al.2000,pp.345-68KibriaN. 1993.FamilyTightrope:TheChang-ing Lives of VietnameseAmericans. Prince-ton,NJ: PrincetonUniv. PressKibria N. 1997. The construction of 'AsianAmerican':reflections on intermarriagendethnic identity among second-generationChineseandKoreanAmericans.Ethn.RacialStud. 20:52344Kim DY. 1999. Beyond co-ethnic solidarity:Mexican and Ecuadoreanemployment in

Korean-owned usinesses n New YorkCity.Ethn.Racial Stud. 22:581-605Kitano HHL, Daniels R. 2001. Asian Ameri-cans: Emerging Minorities. Upper SaddleRiver,NJ: PrenticeHallKofman E. 1999. Female 'birds of passage' adecade later:genderandimmigration n theEuropeanUnion.Int.Migrat.Rev.33:269-99KoslowskiR. 2000.Migrantsand Citizens:De-mographic Change in the EuropeanStateSystem.Ithaca/London:Cornell Univ. PressKyle D. 2000. TransnationalPeasants:Migra-tions, Networks, and Ethnicity in AndeanEcuador.Baltimore/London:ohnsHopkinsUniv. PressLahav G. 2000. The rise of nonstate actors inmigration egulationn theUnited StatesandEurope:changingthe gatekeepersor bring-ing back the state? See Foner et al. 2000,pp. 215-41LeeJ. 1998. Culturalbrokers: ace-basedhiringin inner-cityneighborhoods.Am. Behav. Sci.41:927-37Lee J. 2000. Immigrantand AfricanAmerican

competition:Jewish, Korean, and AfricanAmerican entrepreneurs.See Foner et al.2000, pp. 322-44LeonardKB, TibrewalCS. 1993. Asian Indiansin southernCalifornia:occupationsand eth-nicity.SeeLight& Bhachu1993,pp. 141-62LessingerJ. 1995. From heGangesto theHud-son: Indian Immigrants n New YorkCity.Boston:Allyn & BaconLevitt P. 1998. Social remittances:migrationdriven ocal-levelformsof culturaldiffusion.Int.Migrat.Rev.32:926-48LianosTP. 1997. Factorsdeterminingmigrantremittances:he case of Greece.Int.Migrat.Rev. 31:72-87LightIH. 1972. EthnicEnterprise n America:Business and WelfareamongChinese,Japa-nese, and Blacks. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London:Univ. Calif. Press

Light IH, Bhachu P, eds. 1993. ImmigrationandEntrepreneurship: ulture,Capital,andEthnic Networks.New Brunswick/London:TransactionLight IH, Bhachu P, Karageorgis S. 1993.

Migration networks and immigrantentre-preneurship.See Light& Bhachu 1993, pp.25-49LightIH, Bonacich E. 1988. ImmigrantEntre-preneurs: Koreans in Los Angeles, 1965-1982. Berkeley:Univ.Calif. PressLightIH,GoldSJ.2000. EthnicEconomics.SanDiego: Academic PressLightIH, Rosenstein C. 1995.Race, Ethnicity,and Entrepreneurshipn Urban America.New York:de GruyterLightIH, SabaghG, BozorgmehrM, Der-Mar-tirosianC. 1994. Beyondthe ethnic enclaveeconomy.Soc. Probl. 41:65-79Lin N. 1999. Social networksand statusattain-ment.Annu.Rev. Sociol. 25:467-87Loewen JW.[1971] 1988. TheMississippiChi-nese: Between Black and White.ProspectHeights,IL:WavelandLoganJR,AlbaRD,Dill M,ZhouM.2000.Eth-nic segmentation n the Americanmetropo-

lis: increasingdivergence n economic incor-poration,1980-1990. Int. Migrat. Rev. 34:98-132

353


29/32

354 SANDERS

LoganJR,AlbaRD, LeungSY. 1996.Minorityaccess to white suburbs: multiregional om-parison.Soc. Forces 74:851-81Lyman S. 1968. The race relations cycle ofRobertE. Park.Pac. Sociol.Rev.11:16-22Mahler SJ. 1995. Salvadorans in Subur-bia: Symbiosisand Conflict.Boston:AllynBaconMartinP. 1998. MigrationNews. Davis: Univ.Calif. PressMasseyDS, EspinosaKE. 1997. What'sdrivingMexico-U.S. migration?A theoretical,em-pirical, and policy analysis. Am. J. Sociol.102:939-99MenjivarC. 2000. FragmentedTies: Salvado-ranImmigrantNetworks nAmerica.Berke-ley/Los Angeles/London:Univ. Calif. PressMenjivarC, DaVanzoJ, GreenwellL, ValdezRB. 1998. RemittancebehavioramongSal-v

Documents

Ethnic Boundaries and Identi'y in Plural Societies