The role of cultural analysis in the sociology of race,

ethnicity, and immigration varies across subject matter.

Primarily for political reasons, it has been marginalized
in the study of ethnic/racial inequality, though new
work is reclaiming culture in this important context. It
has an unacknowledged presence in studies of discrim-
ination and domination, but is explicit in macro and his-
torical studies. This article surveys these subfields and
makes a call for bolder, deeper, and broader cultural
analysis in the field. More work is needed on cultural
Culture and assimilation, how inequality and discrimination pro-
duce racial and ethnic meanings, how ethnic and racial

Race/Ethnicity: cultures affect interests through variations in concep-

tions of the meaning of life, how sending state cultures
affect immigrant and ethnic cultures in the United
Bolder, Deeper, States, and how globalization is Americanizing immi-
grants before they even leave their homelands.
and Broader Keywords: ethnicity; immigration; race; culture; glob-
alization; inequality

By
JOHN D. SKRENTNY
T he role of culture in the sociological study
of race, ethnicity, and the related field of
immigration is growing steadily but unevenly.
Cultural analysis as a strategy has lagged in one
of the most central areas of research: variation
between racial/ethnic groups in socioeconomic
mobility. Here, largely for political reasons, cul-
ture tends to be a “last resort” explanation. The

John D. Skrentny is a professor of sociology at the

University of California, San Diego. He is the author of
The Minority Rights Revolution (Harvard University
Press 2002) and The Ironies of Affirmative Action
(University of Chicago Press 1996) and the editor of
Color Lines (University of Chicago Press 2001). His
articles have appeared in American Journal of
Sociology, Annual Review of Sociology, and
International Migration Review, among others. He is
the recipient of awards and fellowships from the
Guggenheim Foundation, the Social Science Research
Council, and the Princeton University Center for
Human Values.
NOTE: The author would like to thank Richard Alba,
Amy Binder, John Evans, David Fitzgerald, Tomás
Jiménez, Michèle Lamont, Jennifer Lee, and Daft
Punk for helpful comments or assistance on earlier
drafts.
DOI: 10.1177/0002716208319761

ANNALS, AAPSS, 619, September 2008 59

60 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

challenge for scholars in this area has been to analyze ethnic or racial cultures
without putting responsibility on disadvantaged groups for their plight. Although
cultural analysis has also lagged in studies of discrimination and racism, it is a
growing presence there, as well as in assimilation and studies of the construction
of racial meanings and categories.
From the perspective of cultural sociology, the study of race and ethnicity
should be bolder, deeper, and broader. By bolder, I mean that sociologists should
not shy away from cultural questions in achievement and assimilation. This
requires assessing the role of culture in ethnic and racial inequality and the nature
of American culture. By deeper, I mean that we should analyze possible ethnic and
racial variations on “existential” questions—the meaning of life itself—as this may
play a role in observable variations and patterns. By broader, I mean a truly com-
parative and global approach that sees American ethnic patterns in relation to
other societies and understands American immigrant groups as possibly shaped by
the cultures of their origins. An issue in all of these areas is the existence and
nature of intrinsically ethnic or racial cultures. I am less concerned here with the-
oretical approach than with subject matter, though I emphasize meanings, bound-
aries, and repertoires to understand how racial and ethnic culture might matter, as
well as a basic insight from cultural analysis: culture shapes interests.
Space limitations allow only a focused overview of the field concentrating on
the key literatures mentioned above, all in the American context, which show
varying degrees of prominence of culture. I then outline an agenda for the field
to become more cultural, emphasizing areas that seem especially ripe for cultural
analysis.

The Sociology of Race and Ethnicity in the

United States: Key Questions
The field of race and ethnicity has few direct roots to the classical theorists.
Tocqueville and Weber provide the most insight. Tocqueville’s (1990) writings on
race, based on observations in 1831 and 1832, focused on black slavery and con-
flict with American Indians in the United States, are impressively perceptive but
often neglected. Tocqueville trenchantly articulated his view: blacks and Indians
suffered from white tyranny; whites taught blacks self-hatred and stripped them
of language, religion, and family; American Indians faced genocide; and slavery
would end but be replaced by “Jim Crow” norms of domination. Weber devoted
little attention to race and ethnicity but offered a definition that endures: “We
shall call ‘ethnic groups’ those human groups that entertain a subjective belief in
their common descent because of similarities of physical type or of customs or
both, or because of memories of colonization and migration” (Weber 1968, 389;
see Cornell and Hartmann [2007] for a discussion).
These are useful contributions, but compared to other fields such as religion,
capitalism, and politics, the classical theorists did not give American sociologists
much to build on. Moreover, the American experience with race and ethnicity, so
CULTURE AND RACE/ETHNICITY 61

overwhelmingly defined by barbarous slavery, the slaughter of American Indians,

and the dramatic experience of mass immigration, seemed unique in the world and
required theories and concepts not derived from European sources. American
sociologists rose to the occasion, with du Bois (1903/2005) focusing on the legacies
of slavery and Park (1950) and Thomas and Znaniecki (1984) contributing more to
the study of immigrant incorporation. The uniqueness of the American experience,
however, has led the field—despite the global perspectives of du Bois, Park, and
Thomas and Znaniecki—to tend toward an almost parochial U.S. focus.
The key questions of the field today continue to come out of the American
experience with racial oppression and immigration. American sociologists of race
and ethnicity typically focus on the dynamics of racial/ethnic inequality, provid-
ing studies of income, education, discrimination, public opinion about race, and
racially marked poor neighborhoods. They also concentrate on how immigrants
adapt to life in the United States, often also addressing various inequalities (the
reduction of inequalities suggests assimilation is taking place). These subjects
may be considered the core of the field, in part because of their long traditions,
and in part because they receive considerable support from major institutions,
especially the Russell Sage Foundation and the Social Science Research Council.
The dominant methodologies in these studies include quantitative analyses,
especially regression, performed by sociologists, demographers, and economists.
Equally prominent are qualitative studies, most typically interviews and ethno-
graphies, to get at the subjective experiences of ethnicity and race. Many studies
combine the two methods.
Another more recent strand of research unites sociologists with political sci-
entists, anthropologists, historians, and legal scholars. It focuses on how races are
defined, categorized, constructed, and dominated, and is typically more histori-
cal in methodology. Unlike studies of inequality, these works are more macro in
scope and look at patterns of racial hierarchy over long periods or sometimes in
remote history.

Explaining Achievement: Culture Is the Last Resort

Studies of ethnic or racial variations in economic or educational achievement
have long been at the center of the sociology of race and ethnicity. With a few
exceptions, such as the study of ethnic variations in entrepreneurship (e.g., Light
1972), however, cultural analysis in this area has lagged behind other subfields of
research since the 1960s. This is primarily for political rather than sociological
reasons. However, scholars have made important recent attempts to bring culture
in while avoiding political pitfalls.

The political implications of cultural explanation

Orlando Patterson (2006) has argued that scholars avoid cultural explanations
of racial inequality because of misconceptions: that cultural explanations blame
62 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

the victim; that they are deterministic, turning people into robots; and that cul-
ture does not change. Although Patterson singled out scholars in economics and
political science, the ghost of Oscar Lewis (1969), the originator of the “culture
of poverty” argument, has haunted the sociology of poverty (Lamont and Small
forthcoming) and also the sociology of ethnicity and achievement. Most simply
put, Lewis argued that cultural practices and values of the poor—especially a lack
of value on achievement—kept them in poverty.
The misconceptions Patterson noted arose in part from political commit-
ments. The politics of cultural explanations of black poverty exploded in 1965
when the so-called Moynihan Report, named after the author, Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, a social scientist and assistant secretary of labor, was leaked to the
press. Moynihan argued that slavery had destroyed the black family and that sta-
ble families were key to upward mobility. Press accounts created an angry back-
lash from those who believed Moynihan was calling for policy to remake black
families (and thus black culture) rather than simply provide jobs (Rainwater and
Yancey 1967). The controversy showed that for many, identifying ethnic or racial
cultural beliefs and practices that contribute to poverty is bad because it blames
the victim, and blaming the victim is bad because it implies there is no shared
responsibility for ethnic inequality (Patterson 1997).
One might add another reason to those listed by Patterson for the marginality
of culture in this subfield: some early attempts to invoke ethnic culture were very
weak. Steinberg (1981/1989) used comparative analysis to attack cultural argu-
ments that he called “ethnic myths” (e.g., that Jews are academically oriented and
Catholics are not). He showed that many cultural theories of achievement were
based on faulty assumptions that different groups are similar in skill and educa-
tion levels.
In this view, culture was only a trait that people had in varying types, rather
than a constitutive force that defined groups themselves or elements of their eth-
nic worlds. This view fit well with quantitative analyses of inequality, where cul-
ture is often a residual variable. Sociologists thus learned to appeal to culture only
as a last resort—after controlling for all ostensibly noncultural factors to explain
variation in achievement, such as human capital, economic opportunities, social
capital, and other “structural” variables. Mostly neglected by the Left, cultural
explanations of black or Latino poverty became the province of the Right
(Patterson 1997; Hein 2006).

Analyzing culture without blaming the victim

In this environment, it was a bold move when Wilson (1987), a supporter of a
generous welfare state, acknowledged the reality and independent effects of cer-
tain cultural traits, such as a tendency toward tardiness or absenteeism at work,
when explaining the poverty of the black “underclass.” In a later work, Wilson
(1996) used sophisticated cultural sociological concepts to show that detrimental
behavior can become entrenched and self-reproducing. However, Wilson also
CULTURE AND RACE/ETHNICITY 63

argued that culture was externally created and uninteresting from the point of
view of race and ethnicity. He explained that “culture is a response to social struc-
tural constraints and opportunities” (Wilson 1987, 61) and that “group variations
in behavior, norms and values often reflect variations in group access to channels
of privilege and influence” (Wilson 1987, 75).
This view—that culture has effects but is decoupled from ethnicity or race, is
not a fundamental cause, and thus is not appropriate as a focus of social policy—
can be found in other works. For example, Anderson (1990, 3) discussed new role
models in the black inner city who, contemptuous of low-status jobs, arose due
to the lack of good jobs; and Waters (1999) presented a study of recent black
immigrants, whose proachievement culture withered away in the face of contin-
ual experiences with discrimination. This approach represents a sociological as
well as political move: it takes cultural explanations back from the Right, and then
banishes them from policy discussion because culture is epiphenomenal. Why
talk about culture, or direct policy toward “fixing” cultures of poverty, if those cul-
tures are simply a response to social and material conditions? Moreover, this the-
ory of culture avoided blaming the victim by denying that racial or ethnic cultures
were in play at all. Rather, a culture of blocked opportunity (somehow) arises in
any poor group to shape behavior (Tyson, Darity, and Castellino 2005).
Prominent in this approach is the theory of “segmented assimilation” (Portes
and Zhou 1993; Portes and Rumbaut 2001), where immigrants vary in three
background factors, including human capital, family composition (e.g., whether
both parents are present), and context of reception (e.g., whether a group faces
significant racism or whether it receives assistance as refugees). Low human cap-
ital, broken families, and racism make it more likely that an immigrant group will
experience “dissonant acculturation,” where the children—but not the parents,
who find their children difficult to understand and control—assimilate into the
“oppositional cultures” of poorer American minorities. Although this may appear
to be a culture of poverty argument, in fact the stress here is on how cultures are
not brought to America by particular groups but are created by or learned in
structural conditions in the United States.
Is a theory of ethnic or racial culture (as opposed to a culture of class and
blocked opportunity) possible in this context that does not appear to blame the
victim? Carter’s (2005) work suggests that it is. Focusing on the school context and
using a variety of concepts from cultural sociology, including cultural capital, cul-
tural tool kits, and symbolic boundaries, she examined the distinctions between
the cultures of low-income African American and Latino students and the cultures
of public schools. She argued that these students develop positive cultures of sol-
idarity and distinction, creating cultural boundaries between themselves and oth-
ers. School success depends in part on how they do this. In Carter’s analysis, the
most successful are the “cultural straddlers” who are able to deploy tools to play
by the cultural rules of the school as well as the cultural rules of the peer group.
Carter distinguished her approach from those who view cultures as epiphenome-
nal: “For many African American and Latino youths, their ethno-racial cultures
64 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

are important sources of strength and are not merely reactive or adaptive by-products
of their positions in a stratified opportunity structure” (p. vii).
Another way to use cultural analysis and avoid blaming the victim is to discuss
the role of culture in ethnic or racial group success. Kao and Thompson (2003)
noted that cultural theories are prominent to account for Asian American educa-
tional success, which remains distinctive even after controlling for human capital
variables. Neckerman, Carter, and Lee (1999) assessed the cultures of middle-
class African Americans, showing that these groups exhibit “minority cultures of
mobility,” or cultural strategies and tools for getting along and moving upward in
a predominately white world that may misjudge and repress them. Using tech-
niques such as “caucusing” for solidarity and support, or conspicuously dressing
and speaking in particular ways that signal their class status, they minimize the
impacts of negative treatment from whites.
Other recent moves have brought creative cultural arguments to the study
of disadvantaged minorities but do not use culture to explain achievement.
For example, Lee (2002) found a key role for “cultural brokers” in stores
owned by Korean or Jewish merchants in Harlem. These are black employees
(though typically black immigrants rather than African Americans) who help
storeowners understand inner-city black culture. Lee showed that these cul-
tural brokers play an especially important role in mitigating conflict. In dialog
with Robert Wuthnow, McRoberts (2003) analyzed the cultural impact of
black churches in poor neighborhoods, arguing that their “religious presence,”
or the ideas, rituals, and symbols that they generate, has a positive impact on
voluntary association. Small (2004) used cultural analysis to explain why neigh-
borhood poverty is sometimes associated with low social capital and some-
times not. In his view, neighborhood “frames” differ in how conducive they are
to participation; those who find their best opportunities for upward mobility in
their neighborhoods are more likely to hold frames conducive to participation
(p. 179).

Sociologists . . . are making more attempts to

understand the cultures of ethnic groups in the
contexts of inequality and poverty.

Sociologists, then, are making more attempts to understand the cultures of

ethnic groups in the contexts of inequality and poverty. Politically, it is a delicate
endeavor, and even the most explicitly cultural accounts often avoid describing
any intrinsically ethnic cultures, internally generated or traceable to ancestral
homelands, that impact achievement.
CULTURE AND RACE/ETHNICITY 65

Studies of Racial Domination

Scholars of racial domination, and specifically discrimination and racism, typ-
ically make cultural arguments without acknowledging that they are doing so.
“Prejudice” and “stereotypes” have cognitive components, but studies rarely ana-
lyze them explicitly as cultural phenomena or systems of meaning. Similarly,
studies defining discrimination and racism as part of a system of power share with
neoinstitutional theory the notions of taken-for-granted meanings, rules, and
scripts, but these studies seldom engage neoinstitutionalism (see, for example,
Feagin 1991; Feagin and Sikes 1994).
We can also find unacknowledged cultural arguments in public opinion studies
of discrimination and racism, which typically see attitudes as social-psychological
phenomena (Edles 2002). Consider “symbolic racism” theory in public opinion
studies. In this view, white Americans view black Americans as lacking in tradi-
tional values such as work ethic, individual responsibility, and ability to defer grat-
ification. These attitudes—or more precisely, these meanings many European
Americans perceive in African Americans—are correlated with opposition to poli-
cies to benefit blacks (Kinder and Sanders 1996). In Bobo’s (2001) view, the dri-
ving force behind white opposition to policies to benefit blacks is not a liberal
ideology but a perceived threat to white status. Although Bobo’s view seems to
emphasize group interests, it still has a strong cultural component because it is
perceptions of threat—a cognitive, cultural phenomenon—that drive white inter-
ests and attitudes (p. 206).
Explicitly cultural approaches to racial domination are more common in his-
torical work. Omi and Winant (1994) focused on the process of “racial forma-
tion,” itself based on “racial projects,” which they defined as “simultaneously an
interpretation, representation, or explanation of racial dynamics, and an effort to
reorganize and redistribute resources along particular racial lines” (p. 56). Edles
(2002) put culture front and center in her definition of racism, which is “a spe-
cific kind of racialized system of meaning . . . in which (implicitly or explicitly)
physical ‘racial’ differences between groups are assumed to reflect internal
(moral, personality, intellectual) differences, and that these differences are orga-
nized both biologically and hierarchically, i.e., racist systems of meaning suppose
that on the basis of genetic inheritance, some groups are innately superior to oth-
ers” (p. 101, emphasis removed).
Similar models of culture play a prominent role in big-picture, comparative-
historical studies of racial domination. Glenn’s (2002) study of racial and gender
domination through citizenship and labor in the American South, Southwest, and
Hawaii captured this approach well and showed how the creation of racial mean-
ings through domination is an interactive process. She structured her compara-
tive analysis with three main dimensions—representation (symbols, language,
and images that express race and gender meanings), micro-interaction (focusing
on social norms), and social structure (rules regulating power; p. 12), showing the
different ways employers used race and gender to control labor and the ways
subordinated groups resisted. Patterson (2005) presented a framework for
66 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

understanding race stratification in different parts of the African diaspora,

including in his analysis a variety of interacting factors, such as the kind of slave
system present, geography, African cultural background, the ethnic demography
of the host society, and the nature of European culture. His approach shows why,
for example, North America produced a “binary mode” characterized by the one-
drop rule as an instrument of oppression, while the Afro-Caribbean mode has
race as continuum, where black and brown people dominate politics and the pro-
fessions and play a significant role in business in a culturally pluralistic society.
There is no obvious reason why culture plays a clear and explicit role in macro,
historical studies of racial domination while it is often muted in studies of the
contemporary United States. Rather than political concerns, the likely reason for
the absence of explicit cultural analysis is that the agenda in this research is to
document that discrimination occurs and to measure its effects rather than to
understand how and why it occurs.

The Social Construction of Race

Work on the construction of racial categories and identities, which may or may
not have a domination component, is also strongly cultural in orientation (e.g.,
Nagel 1994; Cornell and Hartmann 2007). These studies typically see the con-
struction of race and racial or ethnic identity as an interactive process—part
assertion and part ascription—through which race gains meaning or significance.
Brubaker, Loveman, and Stamatov (2004, 45) invited us to think of ethnicity as a
cognitive phenomenon: “Race, ethnicity, and nationality exist only in and through
our perceptions, interpretations, representations, classifications, categorizations,
and identifications. They are not things in the world, but perspectives on the
world—not ontological but epistemological realities.”
The state may be a key actor in the categorization process. Skrentny (2002,
2006) has shown how policy makers’ cultural, cognitive process of analogizing
some racial categories (Latinos, Asian American, American Indians) and even
nonracial (women, the disabled) as similar to African Americans, while excluding
others (white ethnics, gays/lesbians) shaped the political dynamics of inclusion in
minority rights programs. Regarding race/ethnicity, this process created panethnic
categories that became the American state’s “official minorities.” The state may
also play the role of institutionalizing categories that are the result of political or
even scientific contestation. In his analysis of how political pressure led the U.S.
government to require that members of different races be included as research
subjects in medical studies, Epstein (2007) showed how the categories of racial
belonging and political mobilization also came to serve as categories for scientific
purposes. At the same time, he considered how this new attention to the biology
of racial difference alters the broader meanings of race in U.S. society.
However, works such as these are mostly about how political processes—
movements and the state—create racial meanings. Lamont’s (2000) analysis of
black and white working-class men in the United States and France shows how
CULTURE AND RACE/ETHNICITY 67

in everyday life these men draw symbolic or moral boundaries that specify posi-
tion in relationships and assign moral meanings to racial markers. In the U.S.
case, she found that blacks and whites both use moral criteria to distinguish
themselves from others. Whites are more likely to use a standard of “the disci-
plined self,” which emphasizes integrity and work ethic. Blacks, on the other
hand, are more likely to use “the caring self” as a standard, looking with disap-
proval on those they consider exploitative or lacking in compassion.
Studies of the construction of race, where race is a dependent variable, are by
their very nature cultural. This approach can be brought fruitfully into (currently)
less cultural areas of the field to show how race is constructed through everyday
social interaction, which may include discrimination and domination (e.g.,
Staiger 2006) and/or assess how racial inequality creates racial meanings.

New Frontiers for Cultural Analysis: Bolder,

Deeper, and Broader Approaches to Ethnic Cultures
A bolder, deeper, and broader questioning of ethnic and racial cultures would
bring cultural analysis to new or understudied topics. Especially ripe for more
energetic analysis are assimilation, the racial/ethnic mapping of American culture
on “existential” questions, attention to sending state cultures to understand ethnic
cultures in the United States, and the impacts of globalization on ethnic culture.

Bolder approaches to cultural assimilation and American culture

For several years, “assimilation” was almost a dirty word as scholars preferred
to study “acculturation” or “transnationalism.” But it has made a comeback, partly
on the strength of Portes’s work (Portes and Zhou 1993; Portes and Rumbaut
2001) and that of Alba and Nee (2003), and partly because it is undeniable that
there is a process whereby ethnic differences disappear. That is, ethnic groups
become assimilated. What has been surprising is how easily “culture” can be writ-
ten out of a concept that seems to have a significant cultural component—
“cultural assimilation” was a key idea in the early sociology of race and ethnicity
(Gordon 1964). More typically, sociologists today measure assimilation quantita-
tively in statistics of residential patterns, language use, employment, and
marriage partners (e.g., Waters and Jiménez 2005).
Recently, however, sociologists have taken the assimilation concept into new,
explicitly cultural directions. Alba (2005), for example, building on work in cul-
tural sociology, has moved toward conceptualizing assimilation as a process of
movement across or movement of cultural boundaries. Examining language
acquisition and religion as cultural phenomena, as well as citizenship and race,
Alba showed how boundaries separating immigrant groups from the majority
may be “bright” (unambiguous) or “blurry.” Individuals may cross boundaries by
assimilating, or the boundaries themselves may shift, redefining formerly immi-
grant practices as part of the mainstream.
68 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

The more expressive aspects of ethnic culture, however, and the ways these fit
into the wider American culture, are relatively understudied. Yet there is promis-
ing work in this direction. Building on work on symbolic ethnicity (Gans 1979;
Waters 1990) that emphasized the ways white ethnics have maintained ties to
their ethnic background through rituals, foods, and elective ties after leaving
their ethnic neighborhoods, Jiménez (2004) explored the identities and cultural
lives of multiethnic Mexican Americans (individuals with one Mexican-descent
parent and one white, non-Hispanic parent). He showed how their Mexican side
is continually replenished through contact with Mexican neighborhoods, political
movements, and celebrations whereas the “cultural stuff” of their non-Mexican
ancestry, which is typically a European ethnicity or a mix of European ethnicities,
tends to be in short supply. Following Cornell (2000), who used the cultural con-
cept of narrative to understand ethnic identity, Jiménez (2004) documented the
tensions of mixed-background Mexican Americans’ participation in the “Mexican
American narrative” that is only partially their own.
A related area of inquiry is the distinctively American yet still divergent cul-
tures developed by ethnic groups in the United States. Here, scholars address not
just culture as cognitive patterns but also art, fashion, and other forms of repre-
sentation. Lee and Zhou’s (2004) edited volume on young Asian Americans shows
the potential of this approach. Bringing an American-style sociological sensibility
to the Birmingham School theorists, they showed how Asian American youth
have created a new hybrid culture—not clearly American, not clearly Asian—out
of American and Asian elements. Their authors examined such cultural forms as
beauty contests, import car racing, gangs, consumer culture, and campus reli-
gious groups and revealed their meaning and significance within ethnic cultures.
Another approach is to examine the role that race plays in mainstream institu-
tions’ interpretations of racial and ethnic groups’ expressive culture. For example,
we can build on Binder’s (1993) comparison of media constructions of harm in
two popular music genres of the late 1980s—heavy metal and rap, both of which
were assumed to have racially distinct producers and audiences. While writers
expressed concern that young white audiences might indulge in self-inflicted,
harmful activities as a result of listening to heavy metal—taking drugs, having sex,
and attempting suicide—they articulated an altogether different concern about
black rap audiences, who were seen to inflict harm on the rest of society, by rap-
ing women, killing cops, and engaging in gang warfare. Controlling for the con-
tent of the lyrics in both genres, Binder demonstrated that broad cultural ideas
about race inform how the media (and others) perceive popular culture objects.
Clearly, there is more to be done in this area. What are the sources of the new
ethnic cultures? How are they similar to or different from mainstream white or
black cultural styles? More important, studies of cultural assimilation lead to
questions of what American culture is in the first place.
A full understanding of ethnic cultures would need to be comparative—ethnic
minority cultures must be understood in relation to majority cultures. Too often,
research on race and ethnicity is only on racial and ethnic minorities (the American
Sociological Association has a Section on Racial and Ethnic Minorities, rather than
CULTURE AND RACE/ETHNICITY 69

simply on Race and Ethnicity). Note, for example, that Portes and Rumbaut’s
(1996) study of second-generation assimilation makes a strong argument about the
impact of nonwhite race yet contains no data on non-Latino white Americans. But
if we do not know what white culture or “American” culture looks like, how can we
know what is distinctive about nonwhite groups, or about immigrant groups?
Alba’s (2005; Alba and Nee 2003) and Lamont’s (2000) works on boundaries
are important steps toward an approach that takes American culture seriously.
We can conceive of American society and culture as a set of boundaries that
define some groups as “in” and others as “out.” But we can know more of the cul-
tural stuff within the boundaries. For example, if we are to claim that import car
racing makes Asian American youth culture distinctive, we need to be able to
describe the practices of comparable white or black youth. But a bolder approach
to ethnicity, race, and American culture would also need to get deeper.

Getting deeper: An existential cultural sociology of race and ethnicity

We should also know more about the subjective experiences and meanings, as
well as distinctive practices, that might profoundly shape experience. This is the key
contribution of cultural sociology: showing how culture shapes interests. Of course,
mapping American culture is a daunting task to say the least. Given the class and
regional differences in the United States, does it even make sense to search for a
mainstream American culture—and its relation to ethnic and racial cultures?
One useful place to start might be the classic study of how Americans find
meaning in their lives, Habits of the Heart (Bellah et al. 1985). Bellah and his col-
leagues (1985) limited their focus to white, middle-class Americans but provided
unprecedented depth and sophistication in their analysis. They showed how
American cultural traditions of “utilitarian individualism” (the belief in self-
improvement through individual initiative) and “expressive individualism” (the
cultivation of the self) are manifested and, in particular, in the ways white, mid-
dle-class Americans think about success, justice, and freedom. In other words,
they showed how culture can shape interests.
What is needed is a truly comparative Habits of the Heart: an analysis of dif-
ferent ethnic or racial (or indeed class) groups within the United States. Wary of
blaming victims or casting cultures negatively, many sociologists of ethnic
achievement emphasize or assume similarities, or even uniformity, in what dif-
ferent ethnic groups, on average, want out of life. They assume all ethnic and
racial groups have the same interests. But is this a credible assumption? To be
sure, studies indicate similarly high educational aspirations of nonwhite and
white youth. But it is far from clear if it means the same thing when individuals
from different ethnic or racial cultures say they want to go to college or graduate
from school (Kao and Thompson 2003). Given all of the variation in ethnic cul-
tures, and the cultural diversity so often celebrated in the American mosaic, is it
likely, or even possible, that all groups on average want all the same things out of
life, in the same degree, and balance competing demands in the same ways?
Does everyone see the same meaning in life?
70 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Lamont (2000) offered a start toward a multicultural Habits of the Heart. As

discussed above, she specifically compared black and white working-class men on
a variety of factors—including definitions of success. And she found some varia-
tion. “Compared to whites,” she wrote, “blacks are more likely to define success
in financial terms (half of blue-collar blacks compared to a third of their white
counterparts) and to praise ambition (a third of black workers compared to a
fourth of whites). In fact, more black workers value standards of evaluation asso-
ciated with the upper half, such as money” (p. 117).

Wary of blaming victims or casting cultures

negatively, many sociologists of ethnic
achievement emphasize or assume similarities,
or even uniformity, in what different ethnic
groups, on average, want out of life.

Variations in the meaning of life likely can be found between ethnicities within
racial groupings. For example, Kao (1995) found strong evidence of cultural
effects in explaining Asian American educational patterns showing high achieve-
ment. Even after controlling for human capital factors, Asian Americans earn
higher grades than whites. After adding variables for ethnicity, however, she
found variation between Asian subgroups. Only Chinese, Koreans, Southeast
Asians, and South Asians earned higher grades than did whites. Filipinos,
Japanese, and Pacific Islanders earned grades similar to whites, and Pacific
Islanders showed more signs of education disadvantage than other groups typi-
cally considered “Asian.” Desmond and Turley (2007) showed the importance of
“familism” among Hispanics, particularly Mexican Americans, and specifically
the importance of remaining at home during college years—a choice that often
leads to lower levels of achievement.
The common practice of grouping all whites together is also unwarranted on
“meaning of life” questions. For example, Stryker (1981) found Jewish American
understandings of success emphasized educational and occupational status when
compared with other whites. Alba (2006) found underrepresentation of Catholic
white ethnics on the faculties of elite universities and concluded that white elites
draw distinctions between whites and discriminate, particularly against Italian
Americans. Massey (2006) countered with an alternative explanation that also sug-
gests cultural variation among whites, arguing that Italian American underrepresen-
tation could be the result of “the selective movement of Italians toward other, more
CULTURE AND RACE/ETHNICITY 71

attractive occupations” (p. 548). Waldinger (1996) showed that ethnic employment
niches exist for Jewish Americans and Italian Americans, as well as nonwhite groups
in New York. In these occupational sectors where members of particular ethnic
groups are found in concentrated numbers, wages may be higher than in other sec-
tors, suggesting either discrimination outside the niche or some special (cultural?)
resolve that allows for superior performance. Intermarriage is another area where
we may see variation in cultural orientations as well as intraracial variation. In an
examination of mobility in the United Kingdom, Peach (2005) found that the Irish
and black Caribbean immigrants resemble each other and are moving toward inte-
gration, whereas Jews and Indians, despite higher incomes and greater penetration
into suburbia, show lower integration, particularly regarding intermarriage.
These variations suggest the need for more debate on what is going on—is it
possible that ethnic and racial groups vary in their career preferences and what
they consider to be a satisfying or meaningful life, including a satisfying marital
or personal life? If so, how do they vary? Most important, how does behavior cor-
respond to perceptions of the meaning of life? Sociologists of race and ethnicity
are uniquely situated to offer insights on the nature of U.S. culture and should
take nothing for granted on the existence and nature of ethnic cultures within
racial groupings and a diversity of “habits of the heart” for different populations.
Doing so would hardly be a radical move. From the view of cultural sociology, the
point is simple: culture can shape interests.

Broadening horizons: How do immigrants’ national

cultures and globalization matter?
Scholars of race and ethnicity give little attention to the connection between
ethnic cultures in the United States and how they originally appeared in their
sending states. Despite growing interest in transnationalism, it is more common
for scholars’ attention—and thus their theorizing—to begin and end at the U.S.
borders. This is perhaps most explicit in the theory of segmented assimilation,
which places great importance on “contexts of reception.” Immigrants might
bring human capital, or intact or broken families, but that is pretty much all they
bring. Inattention is also apparent in attempts to understand the effort and suc-
cess of East and South Asian students in American education. Typically, scholars
either emphasize strategies to counteract discrimination in the United States or
casually invoke Asian values on education to explain the relative success of Asian
Americans (see Kao and Thompson [2003] for a review).
There are of course exceptions. Some sociologists know well the source coun-
tries of the immigrants and/or consider their impacts on immigrants when they
come to the United States (e.g., Massey, Durand, and Malone’s [2002] work on
Mexico; Waters’s [1999] attention to conditions in the West Indies; and
Morawska’s [1985] study of Eastern European immigrants at the turn of the past
century). Studies of Asian immigrant entrepreneurs note their importation of
rotating credit associations to finance business ventures (Lee 2002). But attempts
to systematically theorize the impact of sending state experience or culture on
immigrants in the United States are far rarer.
72 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Hein’s (2006) study of Cambodian and Hmong refugees in the American Midwest
offers a model on which to build. He developed an “ethnic origins hypothesis” to
understand how homeland experiences affect patterns of integration and assimila-
tion. There are four elements: religious values (including individualism vs. collec-
tivism), norms of constraint and choice in networks, effects of inequality in national
institutions, and effects of intraethnic and interethnic political conflicts. Hein stressed
that ethnic culture is not primordial but that cultural norms emerge from interactions
of cultural and noncultural factors in the homeland and destination state. This
approach gives prominent place to culturally shaped cognition: “Immigrants use
memory and imagination to continuously tap into the histories, politics, and culture
of their homelands” as they create lives in the new context (p. 31).
More can be done in this area. First, we can use cultural theory to understand
the mechanics of this process. Hein (2006) distinguished between cultural factors
(values and norms) and other “effects” that arise from experiences in sending
states. But these are easy to conceptualize as cultural. Scripts or schemas shape
behavior in institutional contexts. Immigration provides an excellent opportunity
to study how reactions to the United States are conditioned by experiences in
sending states. Immigrants do not come with a tabula rasa. They come with
habits, understandings, and perceptions of meaning ingrained over years.
Second, sociologists can explore sending states to understand how these con-
texts matter. For example, consider again Asian American educational achieve-
ment. The substantial effort and money devoted to education by Asian
immigrants to the United States, as well as the building of institutions such as
“cram schools” (Kao and Thompson 2003), appear much less as immigrant-only
phenomena and much more as transported cultural and institutional arrange-
ments from sending states. Cram schools are a major industry in Korea, Japan,
Taiwan, and elsewhere in Asia, and the importance of educational success, as well
as the status gained from the most prestigious schools or occupations, are com-
mon themes in everyday life and popular culture (Skrentny 2007). In 2007,
Korean society was rocked by a major scandal involving political leaders and
celebrities who inflated their educational credentials to get ahead.1 A popular
Korean soap opera, Catch a Gangnam Mother, showed the value on status and
education differently. It details the sacrifices of a mother in the Gangnam section
of Seoul, known for mothers who are particularly obsessed with their children’s
education. She works in a gentlemen’s club to earn money to send her son to pri-
vate tutoring school in the hopes that one day he will earn a place in a prestigious
university.2 Great sacrifices for children’s education are in fact common in Asia,
including mothers living with children abroad—sometimes for years—so that the
children can gain useful language and other educational benefits (Douglass
2006). Similar educational beliefs and practices of Asians in the United States
and in Asia suggest not all behavior patterns are a response to the U.S. context.

National cultures, globalization, and assimilation

Another way to broaden the use of cultural analysis in the study of race and
ethnicity is to consider the opposite dynamic: immigrants may be bringing
CULTURE AND RACE/ETHNICITY 73

distinctive national cultural patterns to the United States, but they also may be
taking on American cultural patterns before they even arrive. In other words,
sending state cultures are changing due to globalization, and this may be affect-
ing the dynamics of assimilation. Because of the narrow vision in much of the
research on race, ethnicity, and immigration, as well as the inattention to cultural
assimilation, studies of assimilation typically do not consider how globalization is
changing sending states before their emigrants even depart their shores.
Sociologists of immigration often seem to assume an anachronistic image of
immigrants moving between discrete and disconnected national societies. But
most sending states are awash in images of the United States, and American
styles are popular, if not dominant, in all regions of the world.
Cowen (2002) offered one of the more perceptive analyses of this process. Two
points seem especially relevant. First, he pointed out that there is no such thing as
a “pure” national culture. Despite the claims of nationalists, all cultures are
hybrids, and even the most cherished cultural practices or forms of representation
have foreign elements. Second, globalization is producing cultural homogeniza-
tion and heterogenization. By this he meant that national cultures such as
Germany and France are more similar today than they were in the past. Trade and
shared technology have led these nations, and others around the world, to become
more similar—in effect, an assimilation process involving a reduction of differ-
ences is going on across the world. At the same time, individuals within a national
culture are now more diverse than before. Globalization has given individuals
more choices. He explained, “Only in a world of globalized culture can I collect
nineteenth-century Japanese prints, listen to the music of Pygmy tribes, read the
Trinidadian author V.S. Naipaul, and enjoy the humor of Canadian Jim Carrey,
while my neighbors pursue different paths of their own choosing” (p. 128).
While Cowen’s (2002) example is particularly middle-class, the process that he
described is hardly so limited. American culture, especially African American
culture, has swept the globe. Rap music, variously interpreted, can be heard in
Europe, Asia, and Africa. The National Basketball Association is popular all over
the world—as is the style of play pioneered by African American players. Hip-
hop clothing and language are global (Mitchell 2001).
The notion of immigrants coming to America’s shores and then “acculturating”
and “assimilating”—as if they are extraterrestrials—seems quaint at best. There
is room here for sociologists of race, ethnicity, and immigration to join with cul-
tural sociologists in a project of tracing how and which culture moves from the
United States to other states, is reinterpreted and reproduced, and is reintro-
duced to the United States. Assimilation can occur before immigrants reach
American shores, shaping how immigrants behave and adapt to U.S. society when
they arrive. In short, an international sociology of assimilation and acculturation
can show that immigrants sometimes transport distinctive national cultural pat-
terns to the United States and that their Americanization may begin even before
they arrive to our shores.
74 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Conclusion
I have argued that cultural analysis has an uneven but growing presence in the
sociology of race, ethnicity, and immigration. More and bolder efforts are needed
especially in the study of inequality. Many of the best culturally oriented works in
this area have treated culture as epiphenomenal or shied away from asserting that
ethnic cultures are in play, although we can build on Carter (2005) to identify the
role of ethno-racial cultures’ role in achievement. Unlike works on the social con-
struction of race or macro/historical studies of domination, studies of everyday dis-
crimination and public opinion on racism and discrimination typically lack a
cultural sensibility. Sociologists could fruitfully link them to cultural sociology, using
insights from social constructionism, or build on their existing arguments that now
only implicitly invoke meanings, beliefs, and taken-for-granted rules or scripts.

[A]n international sociology of assimilation and

acculturation can show that immigrants
sometimes transport distinctive national
cultural patterns to the United States and that
their Americanization may begin even before
they arrive to our shores.

We can also do more to explore cultural assimilation and to understand the

extensive variation in ethnic and racial expressive cultures. Another approach
would be to ask deeper, more existential questions. Understanding how different
ethnic and racial groups tend to see the meaning and purpose of life would get at
one of the unique and valuable contributions of cultural sociology: the cultural
constitution of interests. It appears to be assumed in most studies that all groups
want the same things in life—that groups with different ancestral homelands are
all identical on the deepest questions—as if they are all toy robots facing differ-
ent obstacles but going the same direction. Lamont’s (2000) and Kao’s (1995)
work suggests that this assumption is flawed. We should include studies of white
ethnic groups as well for a full, relational understanding. Although I have used
the terms “ethnic” and “racial” loosely here, we will need efforts to determine
whether it even makes sense to talk of “racial” cultures. Mapping the ethnic vari-
ations in the meaning of life could yield insights into inequality and could aid in
the development of more effective social policies.
CULTURE AND RACE/ETHNICITY 75

Another way to bring culture into the study of race and ethnicity is to take a
broader focus. Unlike other fields, such as political sociology, where many schol-
ars study both the United States and other countries, race and ethnicity studies
have a division of labor where some scholars focus on the United States and oth-
ers do comparative work. There is little communication between them. But com-
parative studies can yield insights, especially where we can trace ethnic or
immigrant cultures in the United States to likely origins in the cultural and insti-
tutional contexts of homelands. Ethnic orientations to deep questions on the
meaning and purpose of life, and their repertoires for how to live it, may be
brought from homelands or developed as hybrids of homeland culture and U.S.
culture and social structures. The other part of this broader vision would attend
to the effects of globalization on sending states; a broad and full understanding
of ethnic culture would acknowledge that the reduction of ethnic differences now
begins before immigration.
Studying the cultures of ethnic and racial groups is a political and sometimes
emotional minefield. A commitment to social justice, however, can and should
include a commitment to full understanding.

Notes
1. See, for example, http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200707/200707200014.html.
2. See http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200707/200707270011.html.

References
Alba, Richard. 2005. Bright vs. blurred boundaries: Second-generation assimilation and exclusion in
France, Germany and the United States. Ethnic and Racial Studies 28:20-49.
———. 2006. Diversity’s blind spot: Catholic ethnics on the faculties of elite American universities.
Ethnicities 6 (4): 518-36.
Alba, Richard, and Victor Nee. 2003. Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary
immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Anderson, Elijah. 1990. Streetwise: Race, class, and change in an urban community. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton. 1985. Habits
of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Binder, Amy. 1993. Constructing racial rhetoric: Media depictions of harm in heavy metal and rap music.
American Sociological Review 58:753-67.
Bobo, Lawrence D. 2001. Race, interests, and beliefs about affirmative action: Unanswered questions and
new directions. In Color lines: Affirmative action, immigration and civil rights options for America, ed.
John D. Skrentny, 191-213. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brubaker, Rogers, Mara Loveman, and Peter Stamatov. 2004. Ethnicity as cognition. Theory and Society
33:31-64.
Carter, Prudence L. 2005. Keepin’ it real: School success beyond black and white. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Cornell, Stephen. 2000. That’s the story of our life. In Narrative and multiplicity in constructing ethnic
identities, ed. P. R. Spickard and W. J. Burroughs, 41–53. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Cornell, Stephen, and Douglas Hartmann. 2007. Ethnicity and race: Making identities in a changing
world. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.
Cowen, Tyler. 2002. Creative destruction: How globalization is changing the world’s cultures. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
76 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Desmond, Matthew, and Ruth N. López Turley. 2007. Staying home for college: An explanation for the
Hispanic-white education gap. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
Association, August, New York.
Douglass, Michael. 2006. Global householding in Pacific Asia. International Development Planning
Review 28 (4): 421-45.
du Bois, W. E. B. 1903/2005. The souls of black folk. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.
Edles, Laura Desfor. 2002. Cultural sociology in practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Epstein, Steven. 2007. Inclusion: The politics of difference in medical research. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Feagin, Joe R. 1991. The continuing significance of race: Antiblack discrimination in public places.
American Sociological Review 56:101-16.
Feagin, Joe R., and Melvin P. Sikes. 1994. Living with racism: The black middle-class experience. Boston:
Beacon.
Gans, Herbert J. 1979. Symbolic ethnicity: The future of ethnic groups and cultures in America. Ethnic
and Racial Studies 2:1-20.
Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 2002. Unequal labor: How race and gender shaped American citizenship and
labor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gordon, Milton. 1964. Assimilation in American life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hein, Jeremy. 2006. Ethnic origins: The adaptation of Cambodian and Hmong refugees in four American
cities. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Jiménez, Tomás R. 2004. Negotiating ethnic boundaries: Multiethnic Mexican Americans and ethnic iden-
tity in the United States. Ethnicities 4:75-97.
Kao, Grace. 1995. Asian Americans as model minorities? A look at their academic performance. American
Journal of Education 103 (February): 121-59.
Kao, Grace, and Jennifer S. Thompson. 2003. Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement
and attainment. Annual Review of Sociology 29:417-42.
Kinder, Donald R., and Lynn M. Sanders. 1996. Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lamont, Michèle. 2000. The dignity of working men: Morality and the boundaries of race, class and immi-
gration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lamont, Michèle, and Mario Luis Small. Forthcoming. How culture matters for poverty: Thickening our
understanding. In The colors of poverty, ed. David Harris and Ann Lin. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Lee, Jennifer. 2002. Civility in the city. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lee, Jennifer, and Min Zhou, eds. 2004. Asian American youth: Culture, identity and ethnicity. New York:
Routledge.
Lewis, Oscar. 1969. A death in the Sanchez family. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Light, Ivan. 1972. Ethnic enterprise in America: Business and welfare among Chinese, Japanese and
blacks. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Massey, Douglas S. 2006. Diversity’s blind spot or the data’s blind spot? Ethnicities 6 (4): 546-50.
Massey, Douglas S., Jorge Durand, and Nolan J. Malone. 2002. Beyond smoke and mirrors: Mexican immi-
gration in an era of economic integration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
McRoberts, Omar M. 2003. Streets of glory: Church and community in a black urban neighborhood.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mitchell, Tony, ed. 2001. Global noise: Rap and hip-hop outside the USA. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan
University Press.
Morawska, Ewa T. 1985. For bread with butter: The life-worlds of east central Europeans in Johnstown,
Pennsylvania, 1890-1940. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nagel, Joane. 1994. Constructing ethnicity: Creating and recreating ethnic identity and culture. Social
Problems 41:101-26.
Neckerman, Kathryn M., Prudence Carter, and Jennifer Lee. 1999. Segmented assimilation and minority
cultures of mobility. Ethnic and Racial Studies 22:945-65.
Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the
1990. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
CULTURE AND RACE/ETHNICITY 77

Park, Robert E. 1950. Race and culture. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Patterson, Orlando. 1997. The ordeal of integration: Progress and resentment in America’s “racial” crisis.
Washington, DC: Civitas.
———. 2005. Four modes of ethno-somatic stratification: The experience of Blacks in Europe and the
Americas. In Ethnicity, social mobility and public policy: Comparing the US and UK, ed. Glenn C.
Loury, Tariq Modood, and Steven M. Teles, 67-121. New York: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2006. A poverty of mind. New York Times, March 26.
Peach, Ceri, 2005. Social integration and social mobility: Spatial segregation and intermarriage of the
Caribbean population in Britain. In Ethnicity, social mobility and public policy: Comparing the US and
UK, ed. Glenn C. Loury, Tariq Modood, and Steven M. Teles, 178-203. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Portes, Alejandro, and Rubén Rumbaut. 1996. Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
———. 2001. Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. 1993. The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its vari-
ants. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530:74-96.
Rainwater, Lee, and William L. Yancey. 1967. The Moynihan Report and the politics of controversy.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Skrentny, John D. 2002. The minority rights revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
———. 2006. Policy-elite perceptions and social movement success: Understanding variations in group
inclusion in affirmative action. American Journal of Sociology 111:1762-1815.
———. 2007. The benefits of comparison: New challenges to race and ethnicity research. Ethnicities
7:135-41.
Small, Mario Luis. 2004. Villa Victoria: The transformation of social capital in a Boston barrio. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Staiger, Annegret Daniela. 2006. Learning difference: Race and schooling in the multiracial metropolis.
Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Steinberg, Stephen. 1981/1989. The ethnic myth: Race, ethnicity and class in America. Boston: Beacon.
Stryker, Robin. 1981. Religion-ethnic effects on attainment in the early career. American Sociological
Review 46:212-31.
Thomas, William I., and Florian Znaniecki. 1984. The Polish peasant in Europe and America. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Tocqueville, Alexis, de. 1990. Democracy in America. Vol. I and II. New York: Vintage.
Tyson, Karolyn, William Darity Jr., and Domini Castellino. 2005. It’s not “a black thing”: Understanding
the burden of acting white and other dilemmas of high achievement. American Sociological Review
70:582-605.
Waldinger, Roger. 1996. Still the promised city? African Americans and new immigrants in postindustrial
New York. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Waters, Mary C. 1990. Ethnic options: Choosing identities in America. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
———. 1999. Black identities: West Indian immigrant dreams and American realities. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Waters, Mary C., and Tomás R. Jiménez. 2005. Assessing immigrant assimilation: New empirical and the-
oretical challenges. Annual Review of Sociology 31:105-25.
Weber, Max. 1968. Economy and society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———. 1996. When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York: Knopf.