Reflection on William Foote Whyte's Work

Instructions:
Pick ONE of the entries, either one of the two you worked on or a new one, and in a new section of your document, write at least 800 words for next Tuesday. Be sure to do this in a new section of the document. Try to bring it to some conclusion but if you cannot that is okay. We will do that in class today.
Also, consider what we have discussed about expository vs argumentative essays and shape the 800 words into either the expository or explanatory framework. We will work on this more in class on Tuesday when you will continue to revise in terms of specific guidance. Consult some of the material in the Essay Support folder.
Add another reflection in which you reflect on what you have done since Thursday and particularly in how you are thinking in terms of exposition and argument. Include any concerns you have.
Remember that as this is a cumulative assignment for which you are scored for each phase on a complete or incomplete basis. Not completing this phase insures you will not recived an A on the final version. On the other hand, as long as you do what is required, you maintain the chance to earn an A.
Entry 1: Assimilation and Acculturation
Assimilation refers to the integration of immigrants into American society, with the understanding that “American society” here means the values, institutions, economic level, and social patterns of the American middle-class. Classical immigration theory assumed that the children and grandchildren of immigrants would make their way into American middle-class society in a gradual upward arc from immigrant community into the wider ‘American’ community, and in the process acculturate to American society by learning English, American history and civics, recreation and sports, participating in shared (extra-ethnic) community groups such as sports leagues, school organizations (PTA), etc. This was called “straight-line” assimilation in that the generations would follow a straight even if gradual line upward into the middle-class.
An alternative theory suggests that in some cases, some of the children of immigrants will not assimilate into the middle-class but rather into a lower, marginal, and even oppositional segment of American society, where their mobility will be limited or tied to illegitimate activity. This theory is called “segmented assimilation” because of the segmented – different directional – mobility: some up into the middle-class and some down into a marginal and/or lower class. Segmented assimilation theory points to certain factors contributing to the downward movement of some groups, such as lack of economic opportunity, membership in a stigmatized and especially racialized group, or living in a stigmatized or problematic neighborhood. These factors are seen as affecting both the group as a whole and individuals within the group.
Segmented assimilation theory also examines acculturation, i.e., the process by which immigrants and their children take on general American patterns of life (as noted above – language, recreation, community participation). They view this acculturation occurring in three ways: consonant, dissonant, and selective acculturation.
Consonant acculturation is when immigrant children and parents acculturate at roughly the same pace, so that the ordinary generational gaps are not exacerbated by a cultural gap. This shared familiarity with American culture facilitates the children’s upward mobility into American mainstream, since it also facilitates the ability of parents to support their children.
Dissonant acculturation occurs when the children acculturate far faster than their immigrant parents. This inhibits upward mobility because it weakens parental authority, loosens family bonds, and makes the children more susceptible to peer group influence, illegitimate opportunity, and social marginality. This is exacerbated if the group as a whole is subject to racial discrimination, stymied economic opportunities, and live in a stigmatized or problematic neighborhood.
Selective acculturation occurs when, as with consonant acculturation, when parents and children acculturate to American at roughly the same pace, while remaining embedded, at least in part, in their immigrant community either because they live in an ethnic majority area or maintain strong contacts with co-ethnics in other ways. Selective acculturation is characterized by “preservation of parental authority, little or no intergenerational conflict, and fluent bilingualism among children.” This acculturation is sometimes called ‘bi-cultural’ acculturation.
Thinking of the above, do you see straight line or segmented assimilation taking place based on the information provided in SCS and “Problems of Adjustment?” What about consonant, dissonant, and selective acculturation?
Another way to frame this is to ask if the problem of Cornerville a problem was a problem rooted in segmented assimilation or perhaps dissonant acculturation, or some combination of these.
Yet, a third way to think of it is to ask if the concepts of segmented assimilation and dissonant/selective acculturation provide us insight into understanding either of these texts.
Note here that you might also think in terms of role the Settlement Houses in the assimilation/acculturation processes.
Entry 2: Networks
Social networks are sets of individual people and groups linked to one another by specific relationships, whether these relationships are as tangible as day-to-day exchange networks or as intangible as perceptions of each other. Network analysts believe that how an individual lives, thrives, and advances depends in large part on how he or she is tied into the larger web of social connections.
Recall that Whyte told us that the social structure of the North End is understandable in terms of its social networks, both those that worked within the local community and those that connected North Enders with people and organizitons outside the neighborhood. He noted that the social networks in the North End were largely enmeshed in rackets, local politics, small and family businesses, and the Democratic party, while those outside the North End were woven into national corporations (business, legal, political), higher education, middle-class Boston values and the Republican party. These outside networks provided greater opportunity for social mobility but to gain access to these one had to separate oneself from the local networks, because they were themselves limited in terms of their scope but also because they were linked to stigmatized (and at times illegal) behaviors and groups.
Was the problem of Cornerville really a network problem? Is it useful to explore it this way rather than in terms of assimilation and acculturation as the main concepts?
Another angle on this is to examine the role of the Settlement House into the networking process. How the did settlement houses sit in terms of these networks, given that they were outside (Republican, Yankee, middle-class agencies) located within the local (Democrat, Italian, lower/working-class) community?
Entry 3: Whyte’s Position
Whyte described himself as a middle-class progressive who wanted to change the world for the better. He also thought of himself as a writer of fiction whose middle-class life did not provide him with the material that he needed to write good fiction.
Did Whyte class position influence the way he approached and represented Cornerville, particularly its problem? Did it distort his understanding of the neighborhood and its problem? Did he see mobility as only possible through adopting Anglo-Saxon middle-class values, or did he leave room for some “Italian values?” Which?
Entry 4: Fraggos and Americanization
In class, we have explored the issue of Americanization vis-à-vis Italian immigrant identity, both its first-generation iteration and that of the second generation. For Whyte, the problem of Cornerville is that its social structure as a whole does not mesh with that of middle-class American society, so that those who stay in the neighborhood or closely attached to it limit their potential economic and social mobility. Fraggos shows that some individuals were adjusting to their position as North Enders, but that this adjustment was individual in the sense that it was removing a mental barrier to the individual’s integration outside of the North End.
How does this help us to think of Americanization and assimilation? Is it a one-way process, i.e., the ‘immigrant’ must adapt to the middle-class society and in the process and in some manner let go of immigrant values? How much must be let go of? What factors determine this?
We also discussed Americanization in terms of racialization. Italians were racialized as ‘White.’ This gave them a wider world in which to integrate and more economic opportunities than if they had been racialized as non-White, at least at the time both SCS and POA were written. How does current racialization affect the process of Americanization? Is the middle-class defined racially as ‘White’ and if so, what effects does/might this have on mobility/assimilation/acculturation of ‘non-White’ immigrants? We are speaking here in a racial frame in which there is no accepted trans-racialism, i.e., one who is ‘non-White’ cannot become ‘White’ – though, of course, one who is non-American can become American. Does the racial frame limit opportunities for mobility? Does it set up psychological obstacles for the individual. How do these psychological obstacles compare to those of the people Fraggos interviewed or those evidence in Whyte’s SCS? On the other hand, might the same racial frame provide more of a chance for an ‘non-White’ immigrant group to retain an ethnic/immigrant-based identity, since no possibility of them merging into the ‘White’ majority as many Italians did by the third and fourth generation and thus ‘loosing’ their ‘ethnic/immigrant identity.’
Or does the problem ultimately lie elsewhere, i.e., in the categorizations themselves, the current racial framing?
This is a pretty open entry with lots of room to explore, so it is perhaps more conducive to an expository rather than argumentative essay.
Entry 5 – Open
Formulate your own entry built around something that struck you or interested you in what we read in any of our texts. This is a chance for you to explore something of interest not included in the above but still related to the course. Be sure to think of it in terms of some question or problem you will address.