In the last decade, the U.S. government has naturalized almost 7 million people into its citizenry (“Naturalization Fact Sheet”). American theorists began publishing their considerations about the intricacies of U.S. citizenship in the 1920s. This first theoretical school of thought on citizenship created frameworks from which American sociologists analyze the, “Processes by which immigrants are incorporated into a host society” (Lee, 2009).
Classical assimilation theory was codified at the Chicago School of Urban Sociology, active in the period from 1915 through 1935 and housed in the University of Chicago, by a small group of sociology scholars and graduate students (“Chicago School of Sociology Urban Sociology, iResearchNet”). The theory, which has been the most well known and which dominated immigration studies until the 1960s, emphasized that assimilation was the immigrants’ path to the American middle class. (Warner and Srole, 1945). Assimilation, in this context, is defined as the dissolution and eventual disappearance of ethnic or racial differentiation from the majority and the cultural and social actions that express that differentiation (Alba and Nee, 1997 and Heisler, 2000). Cultural customs and native languages were believed to be deficiencies or faults that impede success (Zhou, 1999). The path of assimilation was seen as linear with only one outcome-- upward mobility (Rumbaut, 1997). Some scholars, such as Richard Alba and his colleague, Victor Nee, argue that this classical theory is still relevant today. They wrote in their 1997 article in the The International Migration Review that criticisms of the assimilation concept as “burdened with ethnocentric, ideological biases” and as “out of touch with contemporary multicultural realities” are frequently unfair and fail to consider the context in which the argument was born (Alba and Nee, 1997). However, other sociologists and immigration scholars argue that subsequent waves of Asian and Latin American immigration do not follow in the assimilation footsteps of the predominantly European immigrants on which classical assimilation theory was built. In fact, scholars like Herbert J. Gans, the former President of the American Sociological Association, argue that immigrants, and specifically their children, have an advantage in not completely assimilating into mainstream Caucasian U.S. culture (1992). The traditional theory also fails to explain continued inequalities for immigrant minorities in the U.S. and conflicts between population groups (Heisler, 2000).
Modern immigration and assimilation theories build on the inefficiencies of the traditional model focus on causes of immigration and general ethnic and racial relations in the U.S. (Lee, 2009). The four significant modern theoretical frameworks-- segmented assimilation, ethnic communities/ethnic identity, spatial assimilation, and social capital/networks-- all have something in common. In these theories, assimilation influences are divided into two sources: proximate, relating to individual and group relationships and characteristics, and distal, relating to the larger systems in place, such as the state and the economic market (Alba & Nee, 2003 and Lee, 2009).
“Assimilation is no longer considered a single universal outcome for all immigrants but, rather, an incremental process occurring across generations in different ways for different groups” (Lee, 2009).
These modern theories assert distinct research conclusions on the immigrant experience. First, segmented assimilation theory expands on classical assimilation theory by illustrating that immigrants often assimilate only into a portion of majority American society while retaining some cultural distinctiveness. For example, Alejandro Portes and Min Zhou reject the assumption that assimilation must mean adapting to one homogeneous host population. Scholars in this school of thought also recognize that assimilation patterns differ between populations, ethnicities, and generations (Portes and Zhou, 1993). Theorists who advocate for minority culture of mobility within segmented assimilation theory illustrate in their research that native minority communities possess unique knowledge and resources because of their experience coexisting with white America. Due to discrimination and barriers to entry for new immigrant populations, theorists show that these new immigrants may be more likely to integrate into existing minority communities (Neckerman, et. al., 1999). This sub-theory leads to the next major school of thought; ethnic communities or ethnic identity theory emphasizes the importance of cultural identifiers or boundaries that contrast a given group against other groups (Alba, 2005).
Spatial assimilation theorists analyze changes in immigrant assimilation behavior over the span time that the population resides in a host society. For example, spatial assimilationists write that new immigrants are more likely to reside in ethnic enclaves and single-ethnicity neighborhoods. However, after a given number of years, immigrants often take the opportunity to move into more racially diverse areas (Alba, Logan, Stults, Marzan, & Zhang, 1999). Lastly, social capital/networks theory examines a community’s ability to include new immigrants and how social networks do or do not provide resources to enable development in immigrant populations (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1993).
(See the blogpost titled "References" for bibliography)