Herder's Heritage and The Boundary-Making Approach: Studying Ethnicity in Immigrant Societies

Herder's Heritage and the Boundary-Making Approach: Studying Ethnicity in Immigrant
Societies
Author(s): Andreas Wimmer
Source: Sociological Theory, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Sep., 2009), pp. 244-270
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40376136
Accessed: 07-05-2015 05:47 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological Theory.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 65.51.214.12 on Thu, 07 May 2015 05:47:19 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Herder'sHeritageand the Boundary-Making

Approach:
in Immigrant
Societies*
StudyingEthnicity
Andreas Wimmer
Departmentof Sociologyat UCLA
research,includingassimilationtheory,multiMajor paradigms in immigration
and ethnicstudies,take itfor grantedthatdividingsocietyintoethnic
culturalism,
because each of thesegroupsis
groupsis analyticallyand empirically
meaningful
characterized
and sharedidentity.
by a specificculture,densenetworks
of solidarity,
Threemajor revisionsof thisperspectivehave been proposedin the comparative
ethnicityliteratureover thepast decades, leading to a renewedconcernwiththe
research,"asemergenceand transformation
of ethnicboundaries.In immigration
similation"and ''integration'
as potentiallyreversible,
have been reconceived
powerdrivenprocesses of boundaryshifting.Aftera syntheticsummaryof the major
theoretical
propositionsof thisemerging
paradigm,I offersuggestionson how to
it
andfactors
to
in
research.
First,majormechanisms
bring
fruition futureempirical
thedynamicsof ethnicboundary-making
are specified,emphasizingthe
influencing
I thendiscuss
need to disentanglethemfromotherdynamicsunrelatedto ethnicity.
a seriesofpromisingresearchdesigns,mostbased on nonethnic
unitsof observation
andfactors.
and analysis,thatallowfor a betterunderstanding
of thesemechanisms
This articleaims to advance the conversationbetweenstudentsof comparativeethThis conversationhas given rise to a new
nicityand scholars of immigration.1
concernwithethnicboundary-making
in immigrant
societies.Insteadof treatingeth- providingself-evident
units of analysisand
nicityas an unproblematicexplanans
variables
the
as an extakes
self-explanatory
ethnicity
boundary-making
paradigm
planandum,as a variableoutcomeof specificprocessesto be analyticallyuncovered
and empirically
has particularadspecified.The ethnicboundary-making
perspective
societies,as a numberof authorshave suggested
vantagesforthe studyof immigrant
recently.
*Address
correspondenceto: Andreas Wimmer,264 Haines Hall, Los Angeles,CA 90095. E-mail:
awimmer@soc.ucla.edu.Earlierversionsof thisarticlewerepresentedat the conference"Grenzen,Differenzen,Ubergange"organizedby the VolkswagenFoundationin Dresden 2006, at anotherVolkswagen
sponsoredworkshopon "Concepts and Methods in MigrationResearch" in Berlinin Novemberof that
year,at the Center on Migration,Policy,and Society of OxfordUniversityin February2007, at the
Ecole des hautes etudesen travailsocial of Geneva in March 2007, and at the workshopon "Changing
Boundaries and EmergingIdentities"at the Universityof Gottingenin June2008. Special thanksgo
to Richard Alba, Rainer Baubock, Homi Bhaba, Sin Yi Cheung,Han Entzinger,HartmutEsser,David
Gellner,Ralph Grillo, Raphaela Hettlage,Frank Kalter, Matthias Konig, Frank-OlafRadtke, Karin
DimitrinaSpencer,StevenVertovec,Susanne Wessendorf,and Sarah Zingg Wimmerfor
Schittenhelm,
comments.I thank Claudio Bolzmann, WilhelmKrull, Karin Schittenhelm,
Steve Vertovec,Matthias
Konig, and Claudia Diehl for invitingme to the above venues. My departmentalcolleagues Rogers
Brubaker,Adrian Favell, and Roger Waldingerofferedgenerousadvice and criticismthat I wish I had
been able to take more fullyinto account. Wes Hiers was kind enough to carefullyedit the finalversion
(and to teach me that"that" and "which"are not the same).
!The argumentofferedhere draws on Wimmer(1996, fromwhichthe titleis adapted) and Wimmer
and Glick Schiller(2002). For othercritiquesregardingthe (ab)use of the conceptof ethnicity,
see Bowen
(1996) and Brubaker(2004:Ch. 1) forconflictresearch,Brubaker(2004:Ch. 2) for studieson collective
and Steinberg(1981) forimmigration
studies.
identity,
SociologicalTheory27:3 September2009
AmericanSociologicalAssociation.1430 K StreetNW, Washington,
DC 20005
HERDER'S HERITAGE AND THE BOUNDARY-MAKING APPROACH
245
This articlebringstogetherthesevarious worksand offersan integratedaccount

is
of themain theoreticalpropositionsthatunderliethem.First,immigrant
ethnicity
thatspans theboundarybetweenmajority
conceivedas theoutcomeof an interaction
thus involvingactors fromboth sides and creatingboth immigrant
and minority,
and nationalmajoritiesin theprocess.Second, immigrant
minorities
incorporationis
of the boundariesof belonging,whichhas to overcomeexisting
definedas a shifting
formsof social closure along ethniclines. In this process,immigrantsstrategically
tryto adopt culturalmarkersthat signifyfullmembershipand distancethemselves
fromstigmatizedothersthroughboundarywork.
After elaborating these basic theoretical propositions associated with the
I offerconcreteresearchavenues
ethnicity,
approachto immigrant
boundary-making
and
boththecausal mechanismsof ethnicboundary-making
thatwillhelp to identify
the main factorsthat affectits varyingoutcomes.Taking labor marketintegration
and segregationas an example,I arguethatto understandthemakingand unmaking
of ethnicboundarieson labor markets,researchersshould focus theirattentionon
the interplayof institutionalrules (e.g., welfarestate regulations,diploma recognition,etc.), resourcedistribution
(of educationaland economiccapital),and networks
of hiringand credit,whichmay or may not formalong ethniclines. In order to
avoid an ethnicreadingof immigrant
incorporationprocesseswhereit is empirically
inadequate,special attentionis paid to the problemof how to disentangleethnic
fromother,nonethnicprocessessuch as the generalworkingsof
boundary-making
class reproduction.
The concludingsectionfocuseson theresearchdesignsmostappropriateforuncov- a kind of menu fromwhichI hope
eringthesevarious mechanismsand processes
scholars will choose in conductingfutureresearch.I recommendnonethnicunits
of observation,which make it possible to see whetherethnicgroups and boundor dissolved- ratherthan
aries emerge,and how theyare subsequentlytransformed
assumingtheirrelevanceand continuityby takingethnicgroups as units of observation and analysis.Reviewinga series of recentand ongoing researchprojects,I
discuss the potentialof analyzingspatial entities(such as urban neighborhoods),
domains (such as schools or workplaces).
social classes,individuals,or institutional
Researcherswho findit meaningfulto studythe fateof membersof a specificimmigrantbackgroundare offeredsuggestionson how to avoid some of the pitfallsthat
have characterizedstudiesof immigrant
ethnicityin the past.
These pitfallsand theoreticaldeficienciesare subjectedto a systematic
critiquein
the nextsection.I show thatsome of the major paradigmsof immigration
research,
and ethnicstudies,
includingvariousstrandsof assimilationtheory,multiculturalism,
unitsof observationand analysis,
all concur in takingethnicgroupsas self-evident
assumingthat this is the most meaningfulway of dividingsocietyinto groups of
individuals.To varyingdegrees,theyalso take it forgrantedthateach ethnicgroupis
This
and sharedidentity.
endowedwitha specificculture,communitarian
solidarity,
variables
and
of
observation
units
self-evident
as
of
self-explanatory
ethnicity
concept
Stormand
derives,as will be shown,fromthe writingsof the anti-enlightenment,
StressphilosopherJohannGottfriedHerder.
Three decades of comparativeresearchhave shownthattheseHerderianassumptionsare problematicbecause theyhold onlyfora subsetof ethnicgroupsand thus
cannot be seen as generalfeaturesof ethnicityper se. In manyinstances,members
of ethniccategoriesmightnot share the same culture,mightnot forma "community"held togetherby denselywovensocial networks,and mightdisagreeabout the
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
246
Examrelevanceof different
ethniccategoriesand thusnot hold a commonidentity.
iningthedynamicsof ethnicboundary-making
helpsto avoid theHerderianontology
of the social world and to arriveat a more adequate understandingof ethnicity's
role in processesof immigrant
adaptation.
HOW NOT TO THINK ABOUT ETHNICITY
In the eyes of 18th-century
philosopherJohannGottfriedHerder,the social world
was populated by distinctpeoples, analogous to the species of the naturalworld.
Ratherthan dividinghumanityinto "races" dependingon physicalappearance and
innatecharacter(Herder 1968:179) or rankingpeoples on the basis of theircivilizational achievements(Herder 1968:207,227), as was common in Frenchand British
writingsof the time,Herder insistedthat each people representedone distinctive
manifestation
of a sharedhumancapacityforcultivation(or Bildung)(e.g. 1968:226;
but see Berg 1990 forHerder'sambiguitiesregardingthe equalityof peoples).
Herder's account of world history,conveyedin his sprawlingand encyclopedic
Ideen zur Philosophicder Geschichteder Menschheit,
tellsof the emergenceand disand decline,theirmigraappearance of different
peoples, theirculturalflourishing
tionsand adaptationsto local habitat,and theirmutualdisplacement,
conquest,and
First,each
subjugation.Each of these peoples was definedby threecharacteristics.
formsa community
held togetherby close ties among its members(cf. 1968:407),or,
in the wordsof the founderof romanticpoliticaltheoryAdam Miiller,a "Volksgemeinschaft."Secondly,each people has a consciousnessof itself,an identitybased
on a sense of shareddestinyand historicalcontinuity(1968:325). And finally,each
people is endowedwithits own cultureand languagethatdefinea unique worldview,
the "Genius eines Volkes" in Herderianlanguage(cf. 1968:234).
In brief,accordingto Herder'ssocial ontology,the world is made up of peoples
each distinguished
solidarity
by a unique culture(1), held togetherby communitarian
units of
(2), and bound by shared identity(3). They thus formthe self-evident
- themostmeaningful
observationand analysis(4) foranyhistoricalor social inquiry
way of subdividingthe populationof humans.In this ontology,ethnicgroupsand
culturesare anythingbut static- we findample discussionof theculturalbloom and
declineof this or thatpeople, of ethnogenesisand "ethnoexitus"in Herder'swork.
Nor did Herderassume thatall individualswereequally and uniformly
attachedto
theirethniccommunitiesor thatthisattachmenthad some natural,biologicalbasis.
In otherwords,Herderis ill suitedto playtheroleof a strawman bearingintellectual
for the "naturalization,""essentialization,"and "ahistoricism"that
responsibility
self-declared"constructivists"
deplore among their"primordialist"opponents.The
below.
problemswithHerderianontologylie elsewhere,as we will see further
Herder'sHeritage
But I should firstdiscuss Herder'sheritage,whichhas leftits marknot only on his
directdescendantsin folklorestudiesand culturalanthropology
(Berg 1990; Wimmer
1996), but also on sociologyand history.While the rise and global spread of the
nation-statehas changedthe terminology
thatwe use today,differentiating
Herder's
"peoples" into "nations" if statehoodwas achieved and "ethnicgroups" if it was
not, much of his social ontologyhas survived.This also holds true for empirical
researchon immigration,
as thissectionwill show,thoughobviouslynot equally for
all nationalresearchtraditions,theoreticalapproaches,or methodologicalcamps.
HERDER'S HERITAGEAND THE BOUNDARY-MAKING

APPROACH
247
ethnicpeoples,forexample,
has until
Dividingup theFrenchnationintodistinct
beenanathemato mainstream
research
there(cf.Meillassoux1980;Le Bras
recently
in thetradition
of rationalchoicetheory(cf.Esser 1980)
1998).Scholarsworking
or classicalMarxism(Castlesand Kosack 1973;Steinberg
much
1981)are certainly
lessinclinedto acceptHerderian
thanthoseinfluenced
ontology
bythephilosophy
of multiculturalism.
variable-based
researchthattakesindividuals
as
Quantitative,
unitsof analysisavoidsmanyof thepitfallsof community
studies,and so forth.
- forbetteror forworse
- to
In the following
review,I will limitthe discussion
NorthAmericanintellectual
whichare a sourceof inspiration
to many
currents,
and to threesets of approaches:various
discussionsin othernationalcontexts,
strandsof assimilation
and ethnicstudies.As we willsee,
multiculturalism,
theory,
theseparadigmsrelyon Herderianontologyto different
degreesand emphasize
elements
oftheHerderian
ofethniccommunity,
different
and identity.
culture,
trinity
intakingethnicgroupsas self-evident
unitsofanalysisand
however,
Theyall concur,
- rather
thatdividing
an immigrant
observation,
assuming
societyalongethniclines
thanclass,religion,
and so forth is themostadequatewayof advancing
empirical
of immigrant
incorporation.
understanding
is mostvisiblein classicassimilation
whichstudiedhow
Herder'sontology
theory,
movedalonga one-way
roadinto"themainstream"
ethniccommunities
different
intothewhite,
Protestant,
eventually
assimilating
Anglophone-American
people.Asinto this"mainstream"
entailedthe dissolutionof ethniccommunities
similation
and spatialdispersion,
the dilutionof immigrant
cultures
throughintermarriage
of ethnicidentities
and thegradualdiminution
through
processesof acculturation,
waswhathasbeenfamously
called"symbolic
untilall thatremained
(Gans
ethnicity"
mostpowerful
and preciseaccountof
1979).In whatamountsto theintellectually
Gordonstatedthatthe disappearance
of ethnicculture("acassimilation
theory,
firstof ethniccommunity
and solidarity
wouldlead to thedissolution
culturation")
and finally
ofseparateethnicidentities
(Gordon1964).By
("structural
assimilation")
thattheywerecharacterized
by assuming
takingethnicgroupsas unitsof analysis,
and sharedidentities,
and by juxtaclosed social networks,
by distinctcultures,
- the "people"intowhich
nationalmainstream
posingthemto an undifferentiated
- Gordonobviously
dissolve
within
theseother"peoples"wouldeventually
thought
framework
a Herderian
(cf.thesympathetic
critiqueofAlba and Nee 1997:830f.).
versionsof theassimilation
paradigmhaverevisedmanyof GorContemporary
mostimportantly,
thatall
don'sassumptions
(cf.Brubaker2004:Ch.5), including,
and thatsocialacceptancedepends
roadsshouldand willlead to themainstream
In RichardAlba and VictorNee's reformainlyon previousculturalassimilation.
assimilation
an individual-level
mulation
of Gordon'stheory,
processis moreclearly
fromethnic-group-level
processes(Alba and Nee 1997:835),and updistinguished
dimension
of assimilation"
as a "socioeconomic
wardsocial mobility
replacesthe
closurecharacteristic
of Gordon's
withcultureand communitarian
preoccupation
and explanatory
This adds considerable
complexity
powerto theintellecwritings.
tualenterprise.
of Herder'sontologyin how individual-level
Still,we findremnants
processes
ethniccommunities
assimilation
as differentiating
areconceived:
pathsofdifferent
of peasantsvs. professionals,
vs. labormigrants,
and
ratherthanchildren
refugees
research
on spatialdispersion
crafted
so forth.
Thus,in superbly
(Alba and Logan
statistical
mod(Alba and Logan 1992),individual-level
1993)and homeownership
foreach ethnicminority
are calculatedseparately
els of assimilation
group,without
248
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
showingthat this subsamplingstrategybest fitsthe data. Differencesin the magnitudeof individual-level

variablesare thenmeant to indicategroup-levelprocesses
suchas ethnicdiscrimination
(Alba and Logan 1993:1394).In anotherpaper on intermarriagerates betweenethnicgroups (Alba and Golden 1986), no individual-level
controlsare introduced,thusassuming,forexample,thata womanof Polishancestry
- rather
who marriesa man of Polish ancestrydoes so because of ethnichomophily
than sharedlocality,occupation,or otheropportunity
structureeffects.
"Segmentedassimilationtheory"(Portesand Zhou 1993) envisionstwo outcomes
in additionto the standardassimilationpath describedby Gordon. In the enclave
mode of immigrant
incorporation,exemplified
by the Cuban communityin Miami,
ethnicgroupsmay persistover timeand allow individualsto achieveupwardsocial
mobilitywithinan ethnicenclaveeconomywithouthavingto developsocial tieswith
withouthavingto acculturateto themainstream,
and withouteventumainstreamers,
withthe nationalmajority.When immigrants
followthe "downward
ally identifying
assimilation"path, such as Haitians in Miami or Mexican immigrantsin Central
California,theydevelop social ties with,identifywith,and acculturateto the black
segmentof Americansocietyor withdowntroddenand impoverishedcommunities
of earlierimmigrant
waves,ratherthan the "whitemainstream."
Whichof thesemodes of incorporationwill prevaildependson government
reception of a community,
the discrimination
it encounters,and "most important,"the
degreeof internalsolidarityit can muster(1993:85-87). As this shortcharacterization makes clear,the basic analyticalschemeof "old" assimilationtheoryis again
maintained:despite occasional attentionto within-group
variation(1993:88f, 92),
ethnicgroupsconceivedas Herderianwholes move along the threepossible paths
of assimilation,choosing a pathwaydependingon degreesof solidarity(1993:88f,
92; Portes and Rumbaut 2001) or the specificcharacterof ethniccultures(Zhou
1997).2 It is alwaysassumed,in otherwords,ratherthan empiricallydemonstrated,
thatculturaldifference
and networksof solidarityclusteralong ethniclines.
Assimilationtheory'snemesis, multiculturalism
or "retentionism"in Herbert
Gans's (1997) terms,leads back to full-blownHerderianism.In contrastto the various strandsof neoassimilationtheorydiscussedabove,in whichethnicculturesrarely
assumecenter-stage
of theexplanatoryendeavor,3multiculturalism
assumesthateach
ethnicgroup is endowedwitha unique universeof normsand culturalpreferences
and thattheseculturesremainlargelyunaffected
by upwardsocial mobilityor spatial
dispersion.Thus, such perduringethnicculturesand communitiesneed to be recognized publiclyin orderto allow minorityindividualsto live theirlivesin accordance
withgroup-specific
ideas about the good lifeand thusenjoyone of the basic human
rightsthata liberal,democraticstateshould guarantee.
Will Kymlicka'smost recentbook is an example of superbscholarshipfromthis
multiculturalist
tradition(Kymlicka2007). The book offersa carefulanalysis of
the specifichistoricalconditionsunderwhichliberalmulticulturalism
emergedas a
major political paradigmin northwestern
Europe and North America. Somewhat
however,its authorends up advocatingthe propagationof liberalmulsurprisingly,
ticulturalism
across the restof the globe,regardlessof whethertheseconditionshave
been met. I have shownelsewhere(Wimmer2008b) thatthis contradictionemerges
because the analysisis bound by a Herderianontology:Kymlicka'sworldis made of
2For a moredifferentiated
analysisalong the same lines,see especiallyPortes(1995).
3But see
(1992), Zhou (1997) and the critiquesof Steinberg(1981) and Castles
Hoffmann-Nowotny
(1994).
HERDER'S HERITAGEAND THE BOUNDARY-MAKING

APPROACH
249
state-bound
societiescomposedof ethnicgroups,each of whichis endowedwithits
owncultureand naturally
inclined
to in-group
solidarity.
Majoritygroupsdominate
and thusviolatetheirbasicculturaland politicalrights.
minorities
Suchviolationof
conflict
thegranting
ofsuchrights
reduces
while,
minority
rights
produces
conversely,
conflicts.
Seenfromthispointof view,globalizing
multicultural
policiesare indeed
theorderof thedaydespiteall thedifficulties
thatthisprojectencounters
because
in thefirstchaptersof thebook are rarelymet.
theenablingconditions
identified
To putthisin morepolemicalterms,
theHerderian
shieldsWillKymlicka's
ontology
normative
ofhisowncomparative
positionsfromtheinsights
empirical
analysis.4
A similarly
Herderianism
dominatesmuchof ethnicstudiesat
straightforward
and beyond.Withoutassuming
thegivenness
American
universities
and unambiguof theintegrity
and coherence
of ethniccultures,
and of the
ityof ethnicidentity,
of constituting
of ethniccommunities,
theveryprinciple
"AsianAmerisolidarity
and "African-American
"Native-American
"ChicanoStudies,"
can Studies,"
Studies,"
each focusedon a clearlyidentifiable
Studies"as separatesocialsciencedisciplines
Thevariousethnicstudiesdepartments
thus
objectofanalysiswouldbe questionable.
left-Herderian
tradition
continuewhatcouldbe calledan emancipatory,
developed
of recently
foundednation-states
in 19thand folklore
departments
by thehistory
theirpeople'sstruggle
againsttheoppression
by
century
Europe,whichdocumented
fromtheyokeof foreign
rule.5
ethnicothersand theireventualliberation
Ethnicstudiesinsistthatsocialclosureand discrimination
alongethniclinesare
- in contrastto the classicassimilation
societies
of immigrant
features
permanent
stageon theroad to the
paradigmthatconceivesof suchclosureas a temporary
natureof thisparadigmby disthe(left-)Herderian
Let me illustrate
mainstream.
an articlebyone of itsmostrenowned
proponents.
cussingbriefly
fromtheglobalSouthand
Bonilla-Silva
arguesthathighlevelsof immigration
the new,less overtformsof racismthathave emergedin the wake of the civil
thathad longcharacterthebiracialsocialstructure
are changing
movement
rights
in thefaceof this
In orderto maintain"whitesupremacy"
ized Americansociety.
racial
racialgroupto buffer
whites"(1) createan intermediate
threefold
challenge,
intothewhiteracialstrata,and (3) incorporate
conflict,
(2) allowsomenewcomers
blackstrata"(Bonilla-Silva
intothecollective
mostimmigrants
2004:934).The units
ethniccommuare individual
thatare sortedintothesethreenewracialcategories
and Hmong.To supportthisclaim
Vietnamese,
Brazilians,
nities,suchas Japanese,
whichhe aggregates
dataon individual
usessurvey
Bonilla-Silva
income,
empirically,
- a ranking
to
their
then
ranks
and
ethnic
(2004:935)
average
according
group
by
determined
and exclusively
thatis supposedto be entirely
by thedegreesof racism
in
Thiskindofanalysisthuspresupposes
at thehandsofthewhitemajority.
suffered
- thatthesocialworldis made
- ratherthenempirically
axiomaticfashion
showing
between
and discrimination
ofopposition
and therelations
up ofethniccommunities
see Loveman1997).6
them(fora moredetailedcritique,
4
along similarlines; see, e.g., Waldron(1995) and Sen
Many authorshave criticizedmulticulturalism
(1999).
5More
the oppressingpeople has become the object of a separatedisciplinetermed white
recently,
studies" (cf. Winddance,Twine,and Gallagher 2008). On the nationalistfoundationsof ethnicstudies,
see Espiritu(1999:511) and Telles and Ortiz (2008:Ch. 4). For a textbookportrayingU.S. societyas
a collectionof distinctpeoples all oppressedby the dominantwhitemajority,see Aguirreand Turner
(2007).
6U.S.
-styleethnicstudieshave had, forbetteror forworse,considerableimpacton the researchscene
in Europe,especiallyin Great Britain(as Banton 2003 recalls),thoughthe divisionof societyinto ethnic
different
and racial groupsis remarkably
(Irish and Jewishintellectualsclaimedthe statusof "racialized"
minoritiesas well,and the Muslimidentitydiscourseis muchmoredevelopedthan in the UnitedStates).
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
250
Figure1. A Herderianand a Barthianworld.

ThreeMoves BeyondHerderianApproach
The comparativeliteratureon ethnicityoffersat least threeinsightsthatsuggestthe
units of observationenproblematicnatureof takingethnicgroups as self-evident
and communitariansolidarity.None
dowed with a unique culture,shared identity,
research.Howof immigration
of theseinsightsis entirelyunknownto practitioners
ever,theircombinedsignificanceforthe studyof immigrantethnicityhas not been
scholarsin theirempiricalresearchpractice.It
sufficiently
recognizedby immigration
therefore
seemswarrantedto elaboratethesethreepointsmorefullyin the hope that
doing so will help establisha more sustainedconversationbetweenthe two fields.7
The NorwegiananthropologistFredrikBarth was firstto question Herder'sassumptionthatethnicgroupsare necessarilycharacterizedby a sharedculture(Barth
1969; but see Boas 1928). The two graphs in Figure 1 help to illustrateBarth's
approach. The leftgraph representsthe Herderianview,accordingto whichethnic
This landscape is here rendered
groupsreflectthe landscape of culturaldifference.
in terms
and differences
similarities
in three-dimensional
space, perhapsrepresenting
of language(the x-axis),degreesof religiosity
(the y-axis),and genderrelations(the
z-axis),such thatindividualswiththemost similarpracticesare situatedclose to one
on thislandscape of
other.Ethnicgroupsin a Herderiansocial worldmap faithfully
and difference.
culturalsimilarity
However,Barth and his fellowauthors showed in a widelycited collection of
ethnographicessays that in many cases across the world this is actually not the
case (see the graph to the right).Rather,ethnicdistinctionsresultfrommarking
observedby an
of the culturaldifferences
and maintaininga boundaryirrespective
outside anthropologist.Barth's boundaryapproach thus implieda paradigm shift
in the anthropologicalstudyof ethnicity:researcherswould no longer study"the
culture"of ethnicgroupA or B, but ratherhow theethnicboundarybetweenA and
B was inscribedonto a landscape of continuousculturaltransitions.Conformingly,
the definitionof ethnicitychanged: it no longerwas synonymouswith objectively
definedcultures,but ratherreferredto the subjectiveways that actors established
7For
see
scholarshipto the comparativeethnicityliterature,
previousattemptsto connectimmigration
Nagel (1994), who reliesheavilyon Barth,as well as Alba and Nee (1997:837-841),who discussShibutani
not givenbirth
These attemptshave unfortunately
and Kwan's book on comparativeethnicstratification.
to a sustainedconversationbetweenthesetwo researchtraditions.
251
^ Hakka <=>Holo, "Aborigines^

yfromIreland<=>FromNorthernIreland^
v Islanders Mainlandersy
^Taiwanese o OtherChinese^
^Italians, LatinAmericans o Irish^
yChinese American OtherAsian Americans^
V Catholics o Protestants,Jews^
<=>
<=>
=>
vJHispanics Asian Americans AfricanAmericans Anglo-Americans^y
^Mexicans
<=>Other Hispanics"^
Americans Other nations
Oaxaque-os <=>OtherMexicans
.^'
'Indigenous <=>Mestizos
'Zapotecos <=>Other Indigenous
in the United States.

Figure2. A Moermanianview on "race" and ethnicity
themfromethnic
groupboundariesby pointingto specificmarkersthatdistinguished
others.
Anotherbranchof anthropologicalthinking,startingfromMoerman (1965) and
leadingto the so-calledsituationalistschool (Nagata 1974; Okamura 1981), demonstratedthatethnicidentitiesmay be of a relationalnatureand producea hierarchy
of nested segments,ratherthan distinctgroups with clear-cut,mutuallyexclusive
collectiveidentities.8Let me illustratethis point with a U.S. example. The standard, racializedschemethatmuchof mainstreamsocial scienceroutinelyreproduces
in its researchpractice(Martin and Yeung 2003) conceivesof four "races" as the
main buildingblocks of Americansociety:whites,AfricanAmericans,Asians, and
pictureemerges.
Hispanics. Seen throughMoermanian lenses,however,a different
Figure 2 (inspiredby Jenkins1994:41) representsthe range of possible categories
withwhichan "Asian," "white,"and "Hispanic" personmightbe associated,either
or classificationby others.
throughidentification
The "Asian" person hails fromTaiwan and would perhapshighlighther identity
as a Hakka speaker(one of the Taiwanese dialects) when visitinga household of
Holo speakers.Both Hakkas and Holos mightbe groupedtogetheras "islanders"
when meetinga Mandarin speakerfroma familywho came to Taiwan after1948.
All of them,however,mightdistancethemselvesfromthe "freshoffthe boat" immigrantsfrommainland China (Kibria 2002). Mainland Chinese and Taiwanese
perhaps would be treatedas and see themselvesas Asian when encounteringan
AfricanAmerican.The same contextualdifferentiation
operatesfora personof Irish
for
and
a
Waters
1990:52-58)
Zapoteco fromthe centralvalleyof
origin(compare
Oaxaca (cf. in generalKearney 1996), as Figure2 illustrates.
leads to a twofoldrevision
This nestedcharacterof systemsof ethnicclassification
of Herder'sontology.First,not all ethniccategoriescorrespondto social groupsheld
- the leitmotifof Brubaker's(2004) aptly
togetherby dense networksof solidarity
- such as the
titledbook, EthnicityWithoutGroups.Some higherlevel categories
two
to
"Asians"
or
of
examples- mightbe
"Hispanics," give
pan-ethniccategories
8See also Keyes (1976), Cohen (1978), Burgess(1983), Okamura (1981), Nagel (1994:155f.),Jenkins
(1997:41), Okamoto (2003), and Brubaker(2004:Ch. 2).
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
252
relevantforpolitics(Padilla 1986;Nagel 1994; Espiritu1992),but not fortheconduct

of everydaylife (Kibria 2002), such as findinga job, a house, or a spouse. Put in
Weberianterms,thedegreeof social closurealong ethniclinesvariesacrosscontexts.
are not
levels of differentiation
Second, because categoriessituatedon different
categoriesare responsible
mutuallyexclusive,it is not alwaysclearwhetherlower-level
for higher-leveleffects.When we find, for example, that the social networksof
Hispanics are mainlycomposed of otherHispanics,we don't know whetherthis is
or of Oaxaquenos
an artifactof Mexican,Guatemaltecan,and Honduranhomophily,
to relateto otherZapotecos, or
befriending
Oaxaquenos, or of Zapotecos preferring
families(compare Kao and
even homophilyon the level of villagesor interrelated
Joyner2004; Gerhard,Nauck, and Kohlmann 1999).
A thirdand relatedpointthatcomparativeresearchhas broughtto light(especially
Richard Jenkins1997) is that individualsmightdisagreeabout whichare the most
relevantand meaningfulethniccategories.For example,one mightself-identify
primarilyas TaiwaneseAmerican,whilemainstreamAnglostendto lumpall individuals
of East Asian descentinto the category"Asian" (cf. Kibria 2002). More generally
agreedupon.
speaking,ethniccategoriesmightbe contestedratherthan universally
Such contestationis part of a broader politico-symbolic
struggleover power and
prestige,the legitimacyof certainformsof exclusionover others,and the meritsof
foror againstcertaintypesof people (forelaborationsof this Bourdiscriminating
dieusiantheme,see Brubaker2004:Ch. 1; Loveman 1997; Wacquant 1997; Wimmer
1995).
AgainstRadical Constructivism
In summary,the comparativeliteratureon ethnicityalertsus to the possibilitythat
membersof an ethnicgroup mightnot share a specificculture(even if theymark
theboundarywithcertainculturaldiacritica),mightnot privilegeeach otherin their
everydaynetworkingpracticeand thus not forma "community,"and mightnot
agree on the relevanceof ethniccategoriesand thus not carrya common identity.
To be sure, this threefoldrevisionof the Herderiannotion of ethnicitydoes not
implythatethniccategoriesalwaysand necessarilycross-cutzones of sharedculture;
some ethniccategoriesdo correspondto communitiesof bounded social interaction,
and some ethniccategoriesare widelyagreed upon and the focus of unquestioned
identification
by theirmembers.9In otherwords,a Herderianworldmightverywell
be the outcomeof the classificatory
strugglesbetweenactors and become stabilized
and institutionalized
over time.Recent systematicreviewsof the comparativeliterature have revealedconsiderablevariationin degreesof communitariansolidarity
and homogeneityacross ethnicgroups
(or social closure), culturaldistinctiveness,
(Wimmer2008c).
Historicalresearchshows that the same holds trueforwithin-casevariationover
time:culturally"thin"(Barthian),segmentally
differentiated
(Moermanian),and contested (Bourdieusian) systemsof ethnic classificationmay transforminto culturand largelyagreed upon systemsa la Herder,and the
ally thick,undifferentiated,
otherway around. Compare the shiftto a Herderianworld broughtabout by the
9AfricanAmericansin the United States providean example of an ethnosomaticcategorythatcorrenetworksand therarityof exogamous
spondsto a boundedcommunity
(as dozens of studiesof friendship
marriages);forother,non-Europeanexamples,see Wimmer(2008).
253
of the "one drop" rule to determinewho belongedto a clear-cut

institutionalization
"black" categoryin the U.S. South, a shiftthaterased the varand undifferentiated
ious "mixed" categoriesthatpreviouslyhad existed(Lee 1993; Davis 1991). At the
same time,life became less Herderianfor others:forJews,Italians,and Irish who
managedto becomeacceptedas an ethnicsubcategoryof the "white"category(Saks
underwentsegmentary
differentiation
and new
1994; Ignatiev1995), whichtherefore
internalcontestation(how "mainstream"are Jewsand Catholics?). Similarly,Polish workersin the coal miningareas of Germanywere the object of a policy of
forcedassimilationand finallybecame part of the culturally"thick,"undifferentiated Herderiannationof Germans(Klessman 1978),whilea centurylater,Cold War
led to the segmentaldifferentiation
of that nation into
partitionand reunification
the quasi-ethniccategoriesof "Ossis" and "Wessis" (Glaeser 1999).
Given this variationacross cases and over time,it is problematicto take it for
societiesinto ethnicgroupscapturesone of its
grantedthata divisionof immigrant
fundamentalstructuralfeatures,or to assume communitarianclosure,culturaldisor sharedidentitywithoutactuallyshowingempiricallythatthe groups
tinctiveness,
fluin questiondisplaythesefeatures.It is equally problematic,however,to identify
and strategicmalleabilityas theverynatureof theethnic
idity,situationalvariability,
paradigm(e.g.,Nagel
phenomenonas such,as in radicalversionsof theconstructivist
as a cognitivescheme
1994) that treatethnicityas a mere "imaginedcommunity,"
of littleconsequenceto the lifechancesof individuals,or as one individual"identity
should be able to
choice" among manyothers.An adequate theoreticalframework
accountfortheemergenceof a varietyof ethnicforms,includingboth thosefavored
opposites.
by Herderiantheoriesand theirradical constructivist
HOW TO THINK ABOUT ETHNICITY: THE GROUP
FORMATION PARADIGM
Over the past decade or so, several new approaches have appeared in the social
and
sciencesthat are fullycompatiblewith the insightsgained by anthropologists
derive
from
the
most
I
have
now
summarized.
that
They
comparativesociologists
varied traditionsof thoughtand have littlein common except theirshared antiHerderianqualities,as the followingbriefoverviewwill illustrate.In the field of
normative-intellectual
debates, major exponentsof cultural studies (Gilroy 2000;
Bhabha 2007) recentlyhave proposed going beyond the "essentializing"discourse
and striveforwhat could be called a neohumanist,universalist
of multiculturalism
mode of philosophicalreflectionand social analysis.Other,more empiricallyand
orientedprojects,some derivingfromthe "new ethnicities"tradiethnographically
tion initiatedby StuartHall ([1989] 1996), some inspiredby the writingsof Pierre
constitutedfield
Bourdieu,seek to understandhow actors situatedin a historically
who
and
does not (Back
who
who
about
narratives
various
are,
belongs,
they
develop
al.
Brubaker
et
Anthias
2006;
2007).
1996;
in GerA more macro-sociologicaldevelopmentis the "Ethnisierungsansatz"
man sociology,whichoftenderivesinspirationfromgeneralsystemstheoristNiklas
Luhman. "Ethnicisation"is understoodas a self-reinforcing
process of defining,
thuscreating"miin
its
ethnic
social
and
dimension,
reality
reactingupon
shaping,
etc.
law
of
in
domains
the
enforcement,
education,
unemployment,
norityproblems"
In
another
also
Rath
see
Radtke
Bommes
context,
2003;
1999;
1991).
(Bukow 1992;
of imSteve Vertovec(2007) has recentlyobservedthe emerging"super-diversity"
of
and
socioeconomic
trajectories adaptationthat
positioning,
migrantbackgrounds,
makesa neat aggregationinto separateethniccommunitiesimpossible.Glick Schiller
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
254
et al. (2006) have urgedus to go "beyondthe ethniclens" and focusinsteadon innetworksand institutional
teractionalpatterns,includingcross-ethnic
arrangements
that develop dependingon where a localityis positionedin the global capitalist
order.
betweenthese
This is not themomentto discussthecommonalitiesand differences
various post-Herderianapproaches.Rather,I would like to introduceand dedicate
the rest of this articleto anotheremergingtraditionof thought,one that,among
this familyof approaches,distinguishesitselffromthe rest in termsof theoretical sophistication,analyticalprecision,and empiricalgrounding.It emergedfrom
Barth'sconcernwithethnicboundariesand conformingly
has been labeledtheethnic
the ethnicgroupformationperspective.
boundary-making
paradigmor,alternatively,
It can be characterizedby fourratherwell-knownaxiomaticassumptionsthatderive
fromthe various researchstrandssummarizedabove and are meant to replace the
Herderianontology.I summarizethem here as conciselyas possible,withoutany
claim to originality
or innovation.
First,ethnicgroupsare seen as the resultof a potentiallyreversiblesocial process
of boundary-making
units of observationand analysis
ratherthan as self-evident
(the constructivist
principle,as statedby Nagel 1994; Jenkins1997:Ch. 1; Brubaker
2004:Ch. 1). Secondly,actors mark ethnicboundarieswith culturaldiacriticathey
perceiveas relevant,such as languageor skincolor,and the like.These markersare
not equivalentto the sum of "objective"culturaldifferences
thatan outsideobserver
tradimay find (the subjectivist
principle,as developed in the Weberian/Barthian
tion). Third,ethnicgroups do not emergespontaneouslyfromthe social cohesion
betweenindividualsthat share cultureand origin,but fromacts of social distanccf.
ing and closurevis-a-vismembersof othercategories(the interactionist
principle',
the elaborationof thisWeberianthemeby Tilly 1998:Ch. 3). Finally,the boundary
perspectivedrawsour attentionto processesof groupmakingand everydayboundary work (the processualistprinciple),and puts less emphasis on the geometryof
group relations,as, forexample,in the U.S. and British"race relations"approach
(Niemonen 1997).
The boundary-making
approach has recentlygained some ground in migration
research.Richard Alba (2005), ChristopherBail (2008), Rainer Baubock (1998),
JoaneNagel (1994), Dina Okamoto (2006), RogerWaldinger(2003b,2007), Andreas
Wimmer(2002), and Ari Zolberg and Woon (1999) have used the boundary-making
in
language to reviewcentralissues of the field.While thereare many differences
theoreticalorientationamong theseauthors,and some quite substantialand explicit
betweenthem,theiranalysesnevertheless
disagreement
proceed along similarlines.
While it is too earlyto offera reviewof the substantiveempiricalresultsthat this
researchhas produced,we can highlightits main theoreticalpropositions,the way
thatit definestheproblematique
of immigration
research,and how thesepropositions
and problematiquesdifferfromthe four paradigms previouslydiscussed. This is
the task I set forthe remainderof this section.The subsequenttwo sectionsthen
go beyond this exerciseat theoreticalintegrationand synthesisby offeringsome
suggestionas to how this researchtraditioncould develop furtherby focusingon
both mechanismsof boundaryformationand those researchdesignsmost suitedto
studythem.
and Nationals
Making Immigrants
The boundary-making
approach problematizesthe distinctionon which the field
of immigrationresearchis based: that betweenimmigrantminoritiesand national
255
approach implies
majorities.It does so in threeways. First,the boundary-making
that ethnicitydoes not emergebecause "minorities"maintaina separate identity,
culture,and communityfromnational "majorities,"as Herderiantheoriesimply.
Rather,both minoritiesand majoritiesare made by definingthe boundariesbetween
research
them.The German"nation"or the "mainstream"of Americanimmigration
as much the consequencesof such boundary-making
is therefore
processesas are
"ethnicminorities"(cf. Williams1989; Verdery1994; Wimmer2002; Favell 2007).
Second, a comparativeperspectiveforcesitselfon the observerbecause it becomes
and nationalsdisplaysvaryingpropobvious thatthe boundarybetweenimmigrants
erties,as illustratedby the varyingdefinitionsof "immigrants"in nationalstatistics
(cf. Favell 2003) and the correspondingobstacles to findingcomparabledata for
imcross-nationalresearch(HofTmeyer-Zlotnik
2003). Third-and fourth-generation
as long as
migrantscount as "ethnicminorities"in the eyes of Dutch government,
theyare not "fullyintegrated";theydisappear fromthe screenof officialstatistics
and thusalso largelyfromsocial scienceanalysisin France;and in theUnitedStates,
theyare sortedinto categoriesdependingon the color of theirskin,as will be their
Recentsurveyresearchhas shownsubstantialvariation
childrenand grandchildren.
in various
in the nature(and distinctness)of boundariesdrawnagainstimmigrants
European countries(Bail 2008)- a variationnot necessarilyin tune with that of
officialstatisticalcategories,to be sure,because government
agenciesand individual
citizensmightdisagreeas to whichethniccategoriesshould be consideredrelevant
and meaningful.
The distinctionbetweenimmigrantsand nationals varies because it is part and
definitionsof where the boundaries of the nation are drawn.
parcel of different
is an ongoing
These definitions
may also change over timebecause nation-building
of
processfullof revisionsand reversals,as is illustratedby the recentintroduction
laws in manycountries,theabandonmentof whitepreference
dual nationality
policies
in U.S., Canadian, and Australianimmigration
law, or the recentshiftto a partial
ius sanguinisin Germany(cf. the ratheroptimisticassessmentof such changes by
the divisionbetween
therefore,
perspective,
Joppke2005). From a boundary-making
nationalsand immigrants,
includingsocial science researchon how the divisionis
(or should be) overcomethrough"assimilation"(in the UnitedStates),"integration"
and
(in Europe), or "absorption"(in Israel) is a crucial elementof nation-building
needs to be studiedratherthantakenforgrantedifwe are to adequatelyunderstand
the dynamicsof immigrantincorporation(Favell 2003; Wimmerand Glick Schiller
2002).
distincthe immigrant-national
This leads us to the thirdway of problematizing
tion. While migrationappears froma demographicperspectiveas a straightforward
issue (individuals"moving"acrosscountryborders),the boundary-making
approach
revealsthe politicalcharacterof thisprocess."Immigration"only emergesas a distinct object of social science analysis and a political problem to be "managed"
once a state apparatus assigns individualspassportsand thus membershipin national communities(Torpey 1999), polices the territorialboundaries,and has the
administrative
capacityto distinguishbetweendesirableand undesirableimmigrants
(Wimmer1998). Assimilationtheory,both old and new, as well as multiculturalof the
ism, do not ask about this political genesisand subsequenttransfiguration
social
world
too
feature
of
the
a
it
as
but
take
distinction,
given
immigrant-national
obvious to need any explanation(cf. the critiqueby Waldinger2003a). Thus, the
social forcesthatproducethe veryphenomenonthatmigrationresearchis studying
and thatgive it a specific,distinctformin each societyvanishfromsight.
256
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
Distancing,
Making NationalsOut of Immigrants:
BoundaryShifting,
and SelectiveCulturalAdoption
is treatedas the productof a
Once thedistinctionbetweennationalsand immigrants
of
a
new
nation
perspectiveon theold questions
historically
specificprocess
building,
of immigrant"assimilation"and "integration"arises.Ari Zolberg and Woon (1999)
as well as Richard Alba and Nee (2003) were the firstto redefineassimilation
definedas aliens or
as a process of boundaryshifting:groups that were formerly
now
full
of
the
nation. This again
minorities"
are
treated
as
members
"immigrant
is a contestedprocess- the resultof a power-driven
political struggle(Waldinger
and
2003b)- ratherthan the quasi-naturaloutcomeof decreasingculturaldifference
social distance.
Followingthe interactionist
principlepreviouslydiscussed,boundaryshiftingdethe
on
pends
acceptanceby
majoritypopulation,as this majorityhas a privileged
to
the
state
and, thus,the power to police the bordersof the nation.
relationship
therefore
needs to overcomeexistingmodes of social closurethat
Boundaryshifting
the boundariesbetween
have denied membershipstatusto outsidersand reinforced
and
minorities.
assumes
that
such
Assimilation
majorities
acceptanceis depentheory
of "them"becoming
dent on degreesof culturalassimilationand social interaction,
and behavinglike "us." It thus tends to overlook the social closure that defines
who is "us" and who is "them" in the firstplace. The left-Herderian
approach,
by contrast,overstatesthe degree and ubiquityof such closure by assumingthat
discrimination
is necessarilyand universallythe definingfeatureof ethnicrelations.
The boundary-making
perspectiveallows us to overcomeboth of these limitations
the
by examining processesof social closureand openingthat determinewherethe
boundariesof belongingare drawnin the social landscape.
Let me brieflyillustratethe fruitfulness
of this approach by reviewingsome wellknownaspectsof U.S. immigration
history,as well as some less well-knownfeatures
of Europe'simmigration
in the 19th-and 20th-century
scenetoday.Boundaryshifting
United States proceeded along different
lines, dependingon whetherimmigrants
were treatedas potentialmembersof a nation defined,up to World War I, as
consistingof white,Protestantpeoples of European descentstandingin opposition
to descendantsof Africanslaves (cf. Kaufmann2004). While British,Scandinavian,
and German immigrantsthus were accepted and crossed the boundary into the
mainstream
on culturalassimilationand social associationalone,southern
contingent
Irish
Catholics,and easternEuropean Jewshad to do more
European Catholics,
work
to
achieve
the same. They were originallyclassifiedand treated
boundary
as not quite "white" enough to be dignifiedwith full membershipstatus.Italians
(Orsi 1992), Jews(Saks 1994), and Irish (Ignatiev1995) thus struggledto dissociate
themselvesfromAfricanAmericans,so as to provethemselvesworthyof acceptance
into the nationalmainstream.
Similarprocessescan be observedin laterperiods.Loewen providesa fascinating
account of how Chinese immigrantsin the MississippiDelta, who were originally
assigned to, and treatedas membersof, the "colored" caste, managed to cross
the boundaryand become an acceptablenonblack ethnicgroup admittedto white
schools and neighborhoods(Loewen 1971). They did so by severingexistingties
with black clientsand by expellingfromthe communitythose Chinese who had
marriedblacks. In other words,they reproducedthe racial lines of closure that
are constitutiveof the Americandefinitionof the nation. Similarly,contemporary
middle-classimmigrants
fromthe Caribbean and theirchildrenstruggleto distance
257
themselvesfromthe African-American
communityin orderto provetheirworthin
the eyes of the majorityand therebyavoid associationwiththe stigmaof blackness
(Waters1999; Woldemikael1989).
fromtheguest-worker
In contemporary
continentalEurope,establishedimmigrants
period dissociate themselves,sometimeseven more vehementlythan autochthons,
fromthe recentlyarrivedrefugeesfromformerYugoslaviaand Turkeyby emphasizing exactlythose featuresof thesegroupsthatmustappear as scandalous fromthe
theirlack of decency,and
majority'spoint of view: their"laziness,"theirreligiosity,
theirinabilityto "fitin" establishedworking-classneighborhoods.Such discourses
are meantto maintainthe hard-won capital of "normalcy,"achievedat the end of
a long and painfulprocessof boundarycrossing,by avoidingbeing identifiedwith
these"unacceptable"foreigners
(Wimmer2004; similarlyforLondon Wallman 1978;
Back 1996).
In these strugglesover the boundariesof acceptanceand rejection,culturedoes
theone foreseenin classicalassimilationtheory,
indeedplaya role,butnot necessarily
or ethnicstudies.Immigrantswho struggleto gain the acceptance
multiculturalism,
necessaryfor crossingthe boundaryinto "the mainstream"may aim at selectively
acquiringthose traitsthat signal fullmembership.What these diacriticaare varies
fromcontextto context(cf. Zolberg and Woon 1999; Alba 2005). In the United
States,stickingto one's religionand ethnicityis an accepted featureof becoming
national,whileprovingone's distancefromthe commandsof God and the loyalty
of one's co-ethnicsis necessaryin many European societies.The requirementsof
"language assimilation"also vary,even if the general rule is that the betterone
speaks the "national" language the easier it is to be accepted (Esser 2006). While
speakingwith thickaccents and bad grammaris acceptablefor manyjobs in the
UnitedStates,as long as the languagespokenis meantto be English,it is muchless
forms
toleratedin Franceor Denmark.The variation,again,is explainedby different
thatpinpointcertainculturalfeaturesas boundary
of nation-building
and trajectories
markersratherthan others(Zolberg and Woon 1999). The ethnicgroup formation
the selectiveand varyingnatureof culturaladoption and
perspectivethushighlights
emphasizesthe role thatculturalmarkersplay in signalinggroupmembership.
By contrast,classic assimilationtheory(and some strandsof neo-assimilationism)
takes the culturalhomogeneityof "the nation" for granted,even if this culture
is nowadays thoughtof as the syncretistic
product of previouswaves of assimilation (cf. Alba and Nee 1997). It assumes this national majority'spoint of view
in order to observe how individualsfrom"other nations,"endowed with different cultures,are graduallyabsorbed into "the mainstream"througha process of
becoming similar (Wimmer 1996; Waldinger2003a). Those who do not become
similar remain "unassimilated"and coalesce in ethnic enclaves or descend into
contested,
the urban underclass("segmentedassimilation").Thus, the power-driven,
selectivenature of processes of culturaladoption vanishes from
and strategically
sight.
Ethnic studies,on the other hand, oftenemphasize that the dominated,racialized "peoples" develop a "cultureof resistance"againstthe dominating,racializing
and
"people." This emphasisoverlooksthat the dominatedsometimesstrategically
miother
with
to
in
order
markers
cultural
disidentify
boundary
adopt
successfully
noritiesor theirown ethniccategoryand gain acceptanceby the "majority,"as the
in Europe illustrate.
immigrants
examplesof the MississippiChineseor guest-worker
In conclusion,we can gain considerableanalyticalleverageif we conceiveof immigrantincorporationas the outcomeof a struggleoverthe boundariesof inclusion
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
258
in whichall membersof a societyare involved,includinginstitutionalactors such

as civil society organizations,various state agencies,and so on. By focusingon
these struggles,the ethnicgroup formationparadigmhelps to avoid the Herderian
ontology,in whichethniccommunitiesappear as the givenbuildingblocks of society,ratherthan as the outcome of specificsocial processesin need of comparative
explanation.
MECHANISMS AND FACTORS: TOWARD AN
EXPLANATORY ACCOUNT
But how are we to explain the varyingoutcomesof these struggles?What are the
mechanismsof boundaryformationand dissolution?To the best of my knowledge,
thereis no theoryor model that gives a satisfactoryanswer to these questions.
In what follows,I would like to go beyond the synthesisof general theoretical
outlinedin theprevioussectionand further
propositionsand researchproblematiques
mechanismsand factorsthat might
advance the boundaryapproach by identifying
help develop a genuinelycausal and comparativeaccount. I will do so by relying
that I have
fieldtheoreticmodel of ethnicboundary-making
on an institutionalist,
recentlyproposed(Wimmer2008c).
This approach suggestslookingat threeelementsthat structurethe struggleover
boundaries,influencingthe outcomes of these strugglesin systematicways. First,
sense of the term)provideininstitutionalrules (in the broad, neo-institutionalist
centivesto pursue certaintypesof boundary-making
strategiesratherthan others.
Secondly,the distributionof power betweenvarious participantsin these struggles
influencestheircapacityto shape the outcome,to have theirmode of categorization
respectedif not accepted,to make theirstrategiesof social closureconsequentialfor
others,and to gain recognitionof and for theiridentity.Networksof politicalalliancesare a thirdimportantelementbecause we expectethnicboundariesto follow
the contoursof social networks.I now will illustratethis field-theoretic
approach
in
by showinghow thesethreefactorsinfluencethe dynamicsof boundary-making
urban labor markets.
Institutions
The boundary-making
consequencesof labor marketregimesrecentlyhave received
considerableattention(e.g., Kogan 2006). It has become clear that the boundaries
against immigrantlabor are weaker in liberal welfarestates with "flexible"labor
marketsand therefore
a strongerdemandforunskilledlabor,confirming
thatstrong
welfarestate institutionsproduce less permeableboundaries against nonnational
others(Freeman 1986). From an ethnicgroupformationperspective,
thisis because
the class solidarityunderlying
welfarestatesdepends on a nationalistcompact that
induces high degrees of social closure along national lines (Wimmer 1998). The
welfarestatetendsto come at the priceof shuttingthe doors to outsiderswho have
not contributedto the makingof the social contractand who thus should not be
allowed to enjoyits fruits.
At thesame time,welfarestatesallow immigrants
to say no to jobs theyare forced
to take in "liberal" societies,whichfollowa "sink-or-swim"
policy regardingimmiThis difference
both explainswhywe findless immigrant
granteconomicintegration.
in such societiesand generatesthe hypothesisthatimmigrants
entrepreneurship
rely
less on ethnicnetworkswhen findinga job or employingothersthan theywould
259
in "liberal" labor markets(Kloosterman2000). Ethnic networksand welfarestate

as arguedby Congleton(1995).
servicesmightwell be substitutes,
Anotherimportantfeatureof labor marketregimesare the rules for accepting
foreigncredentials.These rules produce a ratherdramaticboundarybetweenhome
bornand foreignborn,as well as betweenmembersof OECD countries,who tendto
recognizeone another'sdiploma and professionalcredentialsat least partly,and the
restof theworld.The selectiverecognition
of educationaltitlesand job experiencesis
a major mechanismthataffectsimmigrants'
earnings(Friedberg2000; Bratsbergand
whichlabor marketsegmentsare open to them.From a
Ragan 2002) and determines
thisis not so much a consequenceof an information
boundary-making
perspective,
cost problemthatemployersface whenevaluatingforeigncredentials,as economists
would have it (cf. Spencer 1973), but rathera primemechanismof social closure
of being treatedpreferentially
on
throughwhichnationalsmaintaintheirbirthright
- even at quite dramaticcosts forthe economyas a
of "their"country
the territory
whole,as economisthave argued(Spencer 1973).
There is also some researchon how rules and regulationsregardinghiringpractices influencethe relativeopennessor closureof particularlabor marketsegments.
The somewhatsurprisingresultof experimentalfieldstudiesis that the degree of
labor marketdiscrimination
against equally qualifiedimmigrantsseems not to be
laws and regulations(Taran et al.
anti-discrimination
influencedby country-specific
2004).
A side note on the issue of institutionaldiscriminationmight be appropriate
here. As many of the more methodologicallysophisticatedimmigrationscholars
have pointedout, we should resistautomaticallyattributing
unequal representation
in different
segmentsand hierarchicallevels of a labor marketto institutionalized
and closure(see the critiqueby Miles 1989:54fT.).
processesof ethnicdiscrimination
approach,
Accordingto the subjectivistprinciplecentralto the boundary-making
it is only meaningfulto speak of ethnic(as opposed to othertypesof) boundaries
of co-ethnicsover others.
whentheyresultfroman intentional
preference
In Germany'slabor market,to give an example,childrenof Turkishimmigrants
in the apprenticeship
are heavilyoverrepresented
systemand dramaticallyunderrepof highereducation.This distributional
resentedin the institutions
pattern,however,
resultsfromsortingall childrenof working-classparentage,independentof their
ethnicor nationalbackgroundor theircitizenshipstatus,into tracksleadingto apor otheron-the-jobtrainingprogramsearlyin theirschool career(Crul
prenticeships
and Vermeulen2003; Kristenand Granato 2007). Such institutionalsortingeffects
are obviouslynot ethnicin nature.10
The same can be said of the mechanismsthat lead Turkishadolescentsinto the
less demandingand rewardingon-the-jobtrainingprogramsand Germansinto the
tracks- claims to havingdiscoveredan institumore prestigiousfullapprenticeship
tionalizedethnicsortingpolicynotwithstanding
(Faist 1993). The main mechanism
seems again to be sortingbased on typesof schools attendedin the highlydifferentiatedGerman school system(Faist 1993:313). This is not to deny that ethnic
transitionor in hiringdeand closuredo existin the school-to-work
discrimination
in Germany,see
cisionsin general(fordirectevidencebased on real-lifeexperiments
Goldberget al. 1996). How muchtheydo, however,is a matterto be empirically
10Most coefficients
forethnicbackgroundvariablesin regressionson the achievementof a gymnasium
degreehave a positivesign once parentaleducationand occupationare controlledfor,as demonstrated
by Kristenand Granato (2007).
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
260
directly(Goldberg
investigated
throughmethodscapable of observingdiscrimination
et al. 1996), ratherthan simplybeing "read" offdistributional
outcomes,as is done
in the ethnicstudiestradition,or offthe significance
of ethnicbackgroundvariables
once individual-level
variablesare taken into account, as in much researchon the
"ethnicpenalty"in thelabor market(e.g., Heath 2007; Silbermanand Fournier2006;
Berthoud2000).
ResourceDistribution
and Inequality
The second step of analysis would examine the consequencesof immigrants'differentialendowmentwith economic,political,and culturalresources(cf. Nee and
Sanders 2001). A few researchershave analyzed the effectsof such resourcedistriwithlower
butionsfroma boundary-making
perspective.It seems that immigrants
educationalcapital and less economicresourcesare particularlylikelyto end up in
ethnicallydefinedniches in the labor market,while betterskilled immigrantsare
in Calmuchless dependenton such niches(see the case studyof Swiss immigrants
iforniaby Samson 2000). Furthermore,
migrantswho have been negativelyselected
on thebasis of theirlack of educationand professionalskills,such as thoserecruited
throughthe variousguest-worker
programsin Europe or the braceroprogramin the
United States,are particularlydisadvantagedin the labor markets,especiallywhen
it comes to translatingskillsinto occupation(Heath 2007). For thesemigrants,the
likelihoodof remainingtrappedin ethnicallydefinedlabor marketnichesis especially
high.
Despite these advances, it is strikinghow littleis known about how resource
in labor markets.As in
distributions
influenceprocessesof ethnicboundary-making
the analysisof labor marketregimes,we would again have to understandhow other
mechanismsthatare not relatedto the makingand unmakingof ethnicboundaries
influencethe labor markettrajectoriesof individuals.In otherwords,we would first
need to understandhow generalprocessesof class reproductionand mobilityaffect
of variouscapitals,as arguedand demonstrated
migrants'positionin thedistribution
in researchon Germanyby Kalter et al. (2007). Unfortunately,
I am not aware of
any studythathas takenthe class backgroundof migrantsin theircountryof origin
and thusthe social backgroundof second(as opposed to the countryof settlement)
of how
generationindividualsinto account. However,only a deeper understanding
the generalmechanismsof intergenerational
class reproductionaffectmigrantswill
allow us to tell whetherthe concentrationof certainimmigrantgroups in certain
professions,labor marketsegments,or occupational strata are the effectsof class
reproductionor the outcomeof boundary-making
processes.
Perhaps this argumentshould be illustratedwith an empirical example. Are
Mexican Americansin the United States and Portuguesein France remainingin
skilledworking-class
positions,as has been argued (Waldingerand Perlmann1997;
Tribalat 1995), because theypursuea strategyof ethnicniche developmentand defense,or because theyare sortedinto thesepositionstogetherwithotherindividuals
of a largelyrural and peasant backgroundby the mechanismsof class reproduction?Even some of the methodologically
most sophisticatedand analyticallycareful
researchinto the "ethnic penalty" in the labor marketassumes, perhaps following the authors' Herderianinstincts,that ethnicvariationmeans ethniccausation
ignoringthe potentialrole of class background(see again Heath 2007; Silberman
and Fournier2006; Berthoud2000).
261
in the labor marketoftenjumps to Herderian

In general,researchon immigrants
conclusionswhen discoveringsignificantresultsfor ethnicbackgroundvariables
characteristics
thatmightbe uninsteadof looking forunobservedindividual-level
equally distributedacross ethniccategories(such as languagefacilityand networks;
thatmay covary
see Kalter 2006), forvariationin contextsand timingof settlement
channelsof migration
withethnicbackground,or fortheselectioneffectsof different
characteristics
are taken
(cf. Portes 1995). Even whensome of theseindividual-level
on group-levelethnicdifinto account,the discussionsometimesremainstransfixed
ferences.A good example is Berthoud'sotherwisesophisticatedresearchon ethnic
employment
penaltiesin Britain.Althoughethnicbackgroundaccounts fora mere
1.7 percentof the variationin employmentstatus (Berthoud2000:406), the entire
articleis organizedaround a comparisonof the labor marketexperiencesof white,
Indian, Caribbean,Pakistani,and Bangladeshimen.
Networks
I suggestto look at how
and resourcedistribution,
frameworks
Besides institutional
networksinfluencethe formationof ethnicboundariesin labor markets.We know
labor marketaccess (Lin 1999)
quite a bit about the role of networksin structuring
and especiallyin the processof ethnicnicheformation.Networkhiringcharacterizes
many for low skilled labor and explains why resource-poorimmigrantsare more
likelyto end up in such ethnicallydefinedniches(Waldingerand Lichter2003). Networkhiringis widespreadamong companiesthatrelyon labor intensiveproduction
methods,wherecredentialsand skills are less importantthan reliabilityand easy
integrationinto existingteams,and in labor marketswhereundocumentedworkers abound. On the otherhand, we also know that weak networkties,which are
oftenmultiethnicin nature,are importantfor betterskilled immigrants(Samson
2000; Bagchi 2001) employedin othersegmentsof the labor market,as a long line
of researchin the wake of Granovetter'scanonical articlehas shown (Granovetter
1973).
Despite these generalinsights,the preciseconditionsunder whichnetworkscoalesce along ethniclinesand produceethnicnichesstillremainsomewhatof a mystery.
As withprocessesof institutionalsortingand the effectsof resourceendowments,
mechanisms.
one needs to carefullydistinguishethnicfromotherboundary-making
or
of
be
the
networks
consequence family villagesolimight
Ethnicallyhomogenous
lines
ethnic
closure
social
rather
than
(cf. Nauck and Kohlmann1999).
along
darity,
The accumulationof such familyties does not automaticallylead- in an emerFamilynetworkhiringmay
genceeffectof sort- to ethnicsolidarityand community.
lead to the formationof a niche that only an outside observerwearing
therefore
Herderianglasses could then identifyas that occupied by an "ethnicgroup"- in
analogy to species occupyingcertainecological niches.In otherwords,even where
individualsof the same ethnicbackgroundclusterin similarjobs or sectorsof the
mechanisms
economy,we should not jump to the conclusionthatethnic-group-level
are responsibleforthispattern.
The final analyticalstep would consist in drawingthese threelines of inquiry
togetherand determininghow the interplaybetweeninstitutionalrules, resource
and networkingstrategiesdeterminethe specifictrajectoriesof immidistribution,
in labor marketsover time.An analysisthatproceedsalong these
individuals
grant
variation
and within-group
lineswould probablydiscovermuchmoreindividual-level
than a Herderianapproach thatfocuseson how "Mexican," "Turkish,"or "Swiss"
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
262
immigrantsfare in the labor marketor on which niche is occupied by which of

these"groups."Some Mexican familiesin the United States,endowedwithlow educational capital, embeddedin home-townnetworks,and affectedby weak welfare
stateinstitutions
seeking
mightindeedpursuea strategyof proletarianreproduction,
stable low skilledjobs that pay well over two or more generations.Others might
struggleto advance in the educationalsystemonly to discoverthe firmlimitsimtheyface
posed by the quality of schools theycan affordand the discrimination
endowed with
when seekingotherthan the least-qualifiedjobs. Other immigrants,
anothermix of resources,focusedon weavingpan-ethnicnetworks,and affectedby
otherinstitutional
rules such as affirmative
action hiring,mightexperiencean easy
transitionintotheprofessionalmiddleclass. Stillothersmightspecializein theethnic
businesssectorand draw upon a large networkof clientsfromwithinthe Mexican
community(see the heterogeneousoutcomesreportedin Telles and Ortiz 2008).
overindividuals,
are obviouslynot randomlydistributed
These different
trajectories
but need to be explainedas the combinedeffectsof fieldrules and theirchanges
over time;the individual'sinitialendowmentof economic and culturalcapital and
subsequentchanges in the volume and compositionof those formsof capital; and
the variablepositionof an individualin an evolvingnetworkof social relationships
throughwhich informationabout jobs and access to certaintypes of professions
the meaningof the ethnic
is mediated.Depending on the labor markettrajectory,
as may the way that otherindividuals
backgroundmay change quite dramatically,
fromotherbackgroundsperceiveand interactwiththeseindividuals.Whetherthese
multiplepositionsand formsof interactioncoalesce into a clearlydistinguishable
ethnicsegmentof the labor marketand the degreeto whichindividualsof the same
backgroundland in such ethnicniches are thus open, empiricalquestions that a
multi-level
researchdesignis best able to answer(cf. Nohl et al. 2006).
DE-ETHNICIZING
RESEARCH DESIGNS
As the previous section has made clear, the perspectiveadvocated here calls for
certaintypesof methodologiesthatmake it easier to observea varietyof outcomes
of ethnicboundary-making
processesand thatallow one to considerother,nonethnic
mechanismsthatmighthave aggregateconsequencesforthedistribution
of outcomes
overethnicgroups.It is necessary,in otherwords,to de-ethnicize
researchdesignsby
takingnonethnicunitsof observationto see boththeemergenceof ethnicclosureand
its absence or dissolution.In the following,I discussthe most importantalternative
units of observationthat have been used in past research:localities,individuals,
social classes,and institutional
settings.In the concludingparagraphs,I will discuss
analyticalstrategiesthatmake it possibleto use ethnicgroupsas unitsof observation
withoutimportingHerderianassumptionsinto the analysis.
Localities
Choosing territorialunits,such as neighborhoods,cities,or regions,providesan
to avoid "the ethniclens" whenobservingwhichformsof categorization
opportunity
are most relevantforeverydayformsof groupformation(Glick Schilleret al. 2006).
A firstexampleof suchresearchis thestudyof a neighborhoodin Cologne by Kissler
and Eckert(1990). The authorswantedto understandhow thislocalityis perceived
and by membersof the alternative
by establishedresidents,by new immigrants,
scene. Using the configurationanalysis developed by Norbert Elias, they showed
263
that the nonethnicdistinctionbetween"established"and "outsiders"is the most

pertinentsocial categorizationand organizationforneighborhoodresidents.Studies
of immigrantneighborhoodsin Switzerland(Wimmer2004) and of working-class
housingcooperativesin southernLondon (Back 1996; Wallman 1978) yieldsimilar
results.Les Back has coined the term"neighborhoodnationalism"to describethese
localistmodes of classificationand social networking.
trans-ethnic,
Gerd Baumann'sworkon anotherneighborhoodin London, however,documents
a different
outcome. He asked how young people of Caribbean and South Asian
backgroundperceiveand categorizetheirneighborhood.To his own surprise,ethnic
discourse("Afro-Caribbean,"
"Muslim,"
categoriesderivedfromofficialmulticultural
"British,"etc.) play a much greaterrole than he had originallyassumed (Baumann
The
1996). Studiesin otherneighborhoodshave revealedyetotherconfigurations.11
obvious task ahead is to develop a systematiccomparativeexplanationof differences and similaritiesin the social and categoricalboundariesthat structurethese
neighborhoodsettings.
Individuals
A secondpossibleapproachis to choose individualsof varyingbackgroundsas units
of analysis,withoutprearrangingthem into ethnicgroups.This is oftendone in
quantitativeresearchin economicsand sociology,whereethnicbackgroundis added
to the regressionequation as a dummyvariable.While this overcomesmanyof the
of findingsis
problemsof the ethniccommunitystudiesdesign,the interpretation
oftenhaunted,as discussedabove,by Herderianassumptions:researchersfrequently
interpreta significantethnicitybackgroundas evidence for ethnicdiscrimination,
the specifitiesof ethnicculture,or the strengthof ethnicsolidarity.Followingthe
principlesof "mechanismic"explanation(the termis fromBunge 1997), however,
- not
findingsignificantresultsfor ethnicdummiesshould representthe beginning
the end of the explanatoryendeavor,because theremightbe severalmechanisms
throughwhichethnicbackgroundaffectsindividualoutcomes,all of whichmightbe
ethnicculture,and the like.
causallyindependentof ethnicsolidarity,
A particularimmigrationhistorycan lead individualsto entera host country's
labor marketat a point in timewhen certainopportunitiesare withinreach,while
othersare not. Membersof certainethniccategoriesmightcome disproportionately
fromruralor urbanbackgrounds.Previouslabor marketexperiencesmightdiffer
systematicallyby countryof originand influenceperceptionsof job opportunitiesand
applicationstrategies(thinkof formerCommunistcountrieswithlife-longguarantee of employment).
Migrationchannelsproduceselectioneffects(comparerefugees
resettledthroughUNHCR vs. guestworkersrecruitedthroughagentsvs. illegalimmigrantscrossingthe borderwiththe help of coyotes),and so on (see the "context
of incorporation"discussedby Portesand Rumbault1990).
Ideally, one would thereforecombine quantitativewith qualitativeresearchto
determineif any of these mechanismsare responsiblefor an ethnic background
or whetherit is indeedrelatedto ethnicnetworks,
culture,or discrimination.12
effect,
One would then returnto the quantitativestage and add observablevariablesthat
capturethe hypothesized"nonethnic"mechanismsin a more directway (e.g., year
ruralor urban,
froma countrythatis predominantly
or immigration
of immigration
nCf. Saniek (1998) on a Queens neighborhood;Back (1996) on Southgatein London.
12For an
exampleof such research,see Piguetand Wimmer(2000).
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
264
had a Communistpast etc.), therebyeliminating,

reducing,or elucidatingthe effect
of ethnicbackgroundvariableswhile at the same time avoidingthe attributionof
outcomes to ethnic-group-level
mechanismswhen, in fact, substantivelydifferent
processesare at work.
Class
Third, one may take social classes as units of analysis and examine how ethnic
boundariesare perceived,talkedabout,and enactedin theneighborhoodsand workplaces occupiedby individualsof similarsocioeconomicstanding.This is theresearch
projects.One book
strategythatMichele Lamont has pursuedin severalinterrelated
reveals that among the middle classes of an Americansmall town, ethnicityand
than individualachieverace are consideredfarless importantmarkersof difference
mentand personality(Lamont 1992)- similarviewsas thosefoundamong successful
black professionals(Lamont and Fleming2005). In the workingclasses,by contrast,
the black-whitedivide is of considerableimportancefor individuals'sense of their
own place in society,theirmoral worth,and theirpersonalintegrity
(Lamont 2000).
An ethnic(or racial) communityapproach would have overlookedsuch important
in the role that racial boundaries play in American society.Focusing
differences
exclusivelyon the African-American
experienceor, as in "white studies,"on the
boundary-making
processesamong "mainstreamAnglos," would miss that the dynamicsof boundary-making
varydramaticallydependingon whichend of the class
- ratherthandependingon the racial backgroundof individstructure
one examines
uals. To put this in more generalterms,qualitativestudiesof ethnicgroup-making
need a researchdesignthatallows forsome variationin thefeaturesof ethnicboundaries observedin orderto gain analyticaltractionand to avoid Herderiancommon
sense.
Institutional
Fields
Anothermode of de-ethnicizing
reseachdesignsis to studyinstitutional
environments
in whichnonethnic(or trans-ethnic)
interactions
are frequent.One thenobserveshow
networksformin such interactionalfields,how actors interpret
and categorizethis
environment
and theconditionsunder
usingvariousprinciplesof social classification,
whichclassifications
and networksactuallydo (or do not) align withethnicdivides.
Much of this literaturehas an explicitanti-ethnicbias and studiesthe conditions
underwhichintegrated,
trans-ethnic
stabilizein churches(e.g., Emerson
relationships
and Woo 2006), schools (e.g., Kao and Joyner2006), workplaces(e.g., Ely and
Thomas 2001), and neighborhoods(Nyden et al. 1997). However,such a bias is not
a necessarycorollaryof the methodology:researchin specificinstitutionalsettings
can bringto lightthe salience and importanceof ethnicgroups as well as those
of trans-ethnic
networksand modes of categorization.Studyingorganizationalfields
thus allows specifying
the institutional
conditionsunderwhichethnicity
emergesas
a major principleof social organizationwithoutalreadyassumingthat this is the
case in the way unitsof observationare chosen.
StudyingEthnicGroupsRevisited
All this criticismof takingethnicgroups as self-evident
units of observationand
should not focuson individuals
analysisdoes not mean thatstudentsof immigration
265
froma particularcountryof origin.When studying"Turks," "Swiss," or "Mexicans," however,one should be carefulto avoid the Herderianfallacyof assuming
communitarianclosure,culturaldifference,
and shared identity.The studyhas to
ask, ratherthan assume, whetherthereis indeed communityorganization,ethnic
etc. In thecourse of such analysis,
closurein networking
practices,a sharedidentity,
I recommendsensitivity
to threepotentialproblems.
First, one needs to carefullydeterminewhetheror not an observedpatternis
indeed "ethnic" or whetherother,lower (or higher)levels of social organization
are responsibleforthe outcome,most importantly
villagecommunitiesor families.
Given thatmost villagesand familiesare mono-ethnic,the observersshould beware
of interpreting
villageor familynetworksas evidenceof ethnichomophily.A wellconceived,carefulstudythat avoids the "measurementvalidity"problemof taking
familialismforethnicsolidarityhas been conductedby Nauck and Kohlmann.They
foundthat the supportnetworksof Turkishimmigrantsin Germanyare about as
familialas thoseof Germannonmigrants
(Nauck and Kohlmann1999). Interpreting
the mono-ethniccharacterof theirnetworksas a sign of ethnicclosurewould theretrustotherTurkishimmigrants
foregrosslymisrepresent
reality:Turkishimmigrants
withwhomtheydo not relatethroughfamilyties no more than theytrustGerman
families.
Secondly,a studydesignthattakes ethnicgroupsas unitsof analysisshould pay
carefulattentionto those individualswho are "lost to the group,"i.e., who do not
maintainties with co-ethnics,do not belong to ethnicclubs and associations,do
do not frequentethnic
not considertheircountry-of-origin
backgroundmeaningful,
cafes and shops,do not marrya co-ethnic,do not workin jobs thathave an ethnic
connotation,and do not live in ethnicneighborhoods(cf. the critiqueby Morawska
1994; Conzen 1996). In order to avoid samplingon the dependentvariable and
therebyeliminatingvariance in the observedoutcome,one should avoid snowball
sampling(e.g., asking "Mexicans" to name "fellow Mexicans"). One should also
avoid studyinga neighborhoodwith a clear ethnicconnotationbecause one then
eliminatesfromthe analyticalpicturethose Mexicans who have neverlived in "the
barrio."
strateThird,carefulattentionshould be givento the varietyof boundary-making
gies that one findsamong individualssharingthe same background.Attentionto
those strategiesthatemphasize
thisvarietyis essentialif one is to avoid privileging
observedvariancein the
thusagain eliminating
ethnicclosureand culturaldifference,
outcome of interest.Several well-designedstudiesshow in detail how researchthat
takes a particularimmigrantgroup as a startingpoint mightbe conductedwithout
thatgroup and its boundedness(e.g., Waters1999; Wessendorf2007; Glick
reifying
Schilleret al. 2006).
Perhaps the best possible researchdesign is a genuinepanel studythat pursues
immigrantsoriginatingfromthe same country(or village or region) over several
decades, ideally across generations.Edward Telles's and Vilma Ortiz's MexicanAmericanprojectrepresentssuch a studydesign(Telles and Ortiz 2008). They have
traced almost all Mexican Americanswho were surveyedin the 1950s and interas well. Their data
vieweda verylarge numberof theirchildrenand grandchildren
show that individualsfromthe same ethnicbackgroundpursue a varietyof ethnic
fromcrossingthe boundaryinto the "mainstream"to
strategies,
boundary-making
reversingthe moral hierarchybetweenmajorityand minority,fromblurringethnic boundaries by emphasizingother,cross-cutting
cleavages to enlargingboundaries by emphasizingthe relevanceof a "pan-ethnic,"Hispanic category(see the
266
SOCIOLOGICALTHEORY
in Wimmer
to describethefateof "theMexi2008a).Ratherthantrying
typology
can community,"
thetaskthenbecomesto makesenseof suchindividual
variation
in boundary-making
lifechances
and itsconsequences
bothforindividual
strategies
and fortheemergence
and transformation
ofvariousformsof socialclosure.
REFERENCES
The Dynamicsand Consequencesof Discrimination.
Aguirre,A. and J.H. Turner.2007. AmericanEthnicity.
New York: McGraw Hill.
Alba, R. D. 2005. "Brightvs. BlurredBoundaries: Second GenerationAssimilationand Exclusion in
France,Germany,and the United States." Ethnicand Racial Studies28(l):20^9.
Alba, R. and R. M. Golden. 1986. "Patternsof Ethnic Marriage in the United States." Social Forces
65(l):202-223.
in HomeownershipPatternsof Racial
Alba, R. and J. R. Logan. 1992. "Assimilationand Stratification
and EthnicGroups." International
MigrationReview26(4): 1314-1341.
Alba, R. D. and J. R. Logan. 1993. "MinorityProximityto Whites in Suburbs: An Individual-Level
Analysisof Segregation."AmericanJournalof Sociology98(6): 1388-1427.
Alba, R. D. and V. Nee. 1997. "RethinkingAssimilationTheoryfora New Era of Immigration."InternationalMigrationReview31(4):826-874.
Alba, R. D. and V. Nee. 2003. Remakingthe AmericanMainstream:Assimilationand Contemporary
Immigration.
Cambridge,MA: Harvard UniversityPress.
Translocation."in Situated
Anthias,F. 2006. "Belongingin a Globalisingand Unequal World:Rethinking
Politicsof Belonging,editedby N. Yuval-Davis. London: Sage.
Back, L. 1996. New Ethnicitiesand Urban Culture.Racism and Multiculturein YoungLives. London:
Routledge.
Bagchi, A. D. 2001. "Migrant Networksand the ImmigrantProfessional:An Analysisof the Role of
Weak Ties." PopulationResearchand PolicyReview20:9-31.
Bail, C. 2008. "The Configurationof SymbolicBoundaries Against Immigrantsin Europe." American
SociologicalReview73(l):37-59.
Banton,M. P. 2003. "TeachingEthnicand Racial Studies." Ethnicand Racial Studies26(3):488-502.
Barth,F. 1969. "Introduction."Pp. 1-38 in EthnicGroupsand Boundaries:The Social Organizationof
CultureDifference,
editedbv F. Barth.London: Allen & Unwin.
Baubock, R. 1998. "The Crossingand Blurringof Boundariesin InternationalMigrationChallengesfor
Social and PoliticalTheory." Pp. 17-52 in BlurredBoundaries:Migration,Ethnicity,
edited
Citizenship,
by R. Baubock and J.Rundell.Aldershot,UK: Ashgate.
Baumann,G. 1996. ContestingCultureDiscoursesof Identityin Multi-EthnicLondon.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Von MonBerg, E. 1990. "JohannGottfriedHerder (1744^1803)." in Klassikerder Kulturanthropologie
taignebis MargaretMead, editedby W. Marschall.Munich: C. H. Beck.
Berthoud,R. 2000. "Ethnic EmploymentPenaltiesin Britain."Journalof Ethnicand MigrationStudies
26(3):389-416.
Bhabha, H. K. 2007. "Boundaries,Differences,
Passages." in Grenzen,Differenzen,
Uebergdnge.Spaninter-und transkultureller
editedby A. Gunsenheimer.
Kommunikation,
Bielefeld,Germany:
nungsfelder
Transcript.
and ModernLife,editedby F. Boas. New York: Norton.
Boas, F. 1928. "Nationalism."in Anthropology
Bommes,M. 1999. MigrationundnationalerWohlfahrtsstaat.
Opladen, Germany:Westdeutscher
Verlag.
in
Bonilla-Silva,E. 2004. "From Bi-Racial to Tri-Racial:Towardsa New Systemof Racial Stratification
the USA." Ethnicand Racial Studies27(6):931-950.
Bowen,J.R. 1996. "The Mythof Global EthnicConflict."Journalof Democracy7(4):3-14.
Bratsberg,B. and J. F. Ragan. 2002. "The Impact of Host-CountrySchoolingon Earnings:A Studyof
Male Immigrantsin the United States." The Journalof Human Resources37(1):63-105.
Brubaker,R. 2004. EthnicitywithoutGroups.Cambridge,MA: Harvard UniversityPress.
J.Fox, and L. Grancea. 2007. NationalistPoliticsand EverydayEthnicity
Brubaker,R., M. Feinschmidt,
in a Transylvanian
Town.Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversityPress.
Bukow,W. D. 1992. "Ethnisierungund nationaleIdentitat."in InstitutfurMigrations-und RassismusRassismusund Migrationin Europa. Hamburg,Germany:Argumentforschung,
Verlag.
Bunge,M. 1997. "Mechanismand Explanation."Philosophyof Social Sciences27:410-465.
Burgess,M. E. 1983. "EthnicScale and Intensity:The ZimbabweanExperience."Social Forces59(3):601626.
267
Castles, S. 1994. "La sociologie et la peur de 'culturesincompatibles'.Commentairessur le rapport

in Europe:montrez
du 'laboratoire
Hoffmann-Nowotny."
patteblanche:les nouvelles
frontieres
Schengen',
editedby Marie-ClaireCaloz-Tschopp and MichelineFontollietHonore. Geneva, Switzerland:Centre
Europe-TiersMonde.
Castles, S. and G. Kosack. 1973. ImmigrantWorkersand Class Structurein WesternEurope. London:
OxfordUniversity
Press.
7:397Cohen, R. 1978. "Ethnicity:Problemand Focus in Anthropology."AnnualReviewof Anthropology
403.
Congleton,R. D. 1995. "EthnicClubs, EthnicConflict,and the Rise of EthnicNationalism."in Nationalism and Rationality,
editedby A. Bretonand et al. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
of AmericanImmigration."
Journal
Conzen, K. N. 1996. "Thomas and Znanieckiand the Historiography
of AmericanEthnicHistory16(1):16-26.
Crul, M. and H. Vermeulen.2003. "The Second Generationin Europe." International
MigrationReview
37(4):965-985.
Davis, J.F. 1991. Whois Black? One Nation'sDefinition.UniversityPark, PA: PennsylvaniaState Press.
Ely, R. J. and D. A. Thomas. 2001. "Cultural Diversityat Work:The Effectsof DiversityPerspectives
46:229-273.
Science Quarterly
on WorkGroup Processesand Outcomes."Administrative
in the Unites
Emerson,M. O. and R. M. Woo. 2006. People of the Dream: MultiracialCongregations
Press.
States. Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniversity
and Identities.Philadelphia,PA:
BridgingInstitutions
Espiritu,Y. L. 1992. Asian AmericanPanethnicity:
Press.
Temple University
Espiritu,Y. L. 1999. "Disciplines Unbound: Notes on Sociology and Ethnic Studies." Contemporary
Sociology28(5):510-514.
undIntegration
von Wanderern,
ethnischen
Assimilation
Esser, H. 1980. Aspekteder Wanderungssoziologie.
Eine handlungstheoretische
Analyse.Darmstadt,Germany:Luchterhand.
Gruppenund Minderheiten.
von
Esser, H. 2006. Sprache und Integration.Die sozialen Bedingungenund Folgen des Spracherwerbs
Germany:Campus.
Migranten.Frankfurt,
Faist, T. 1993. "From School to Work:Public Policyand UnderclassFormationamong Young Turksin
MigrationReview27(2):306-331.
Germanyduringthe 1980s." International
in WesternEurope."
Favell,A. 2003. "IntegrationNations:the Nation-Stateand Researchon Immigrants
ComparativeSocial Research22:13-42.
in
Favell, A. 2007. "Rebooting MigrationTheory Interdisciplinarity,
Globality,and Postdisciplinarity
MigrationStudies." Pp. 259-278 in MigrationTheory:TalkingAcrossDisciplines,edited by C. Bretell
and J. Hollified.
Freeman,G. P. 1986. "Migrationand the PoliticalEconomyof theWelfareState." Annalsof theAmerican
Academyof Politicaland Social Science 485:51-63.
of Human
Assimilationand the Portability
Friedberg,R. M. 2000. "You can't takeit withyou?Immigrant
Capital." Journalof Labor Economics18:221-251.
Gans, H. 1979. "SymbolicEthnicity:The Futureof EthnicGroups and Culturein America."Ethnicand
Racial Studies2:1-20.
Gans, H. 1997. "Toward a Reconciliationof "Assimilation"and "Pluralism":The Interplayof Acculturation and EthnicRetention."International
MigrationReview31(4):875-892.
Gilroy,P. 2000. AgainstRace ImaginingPolitical CultureBeyondthe Color Line. Cambridge:Harvard
Press.
University
Glaeser, A. 1999. Divided in Unity:Identity,Germanyand the BerlinPolice. Chicago, IL: Universityof
Chicago Press.
Glick Schiller,N, A. Caglar,and T. C. Guldbrandsen.2006. "Beyondthe EthnicLens: Locality,Globality,
and Born-againIncorporation."AmericanEthnologist33(4):612-633.
againstForeignWorkers
Goldberg,A., D. Mourinho,and U. Kulke. 1996. Labour MarketDiscrimination
in Germany.Geneva: InternationalLabor Organization.
Gordon, M. M. 1964. Assimilationin AmericanLife The Role of Race, Religionand National Origin.
Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
M. S. 1973. "The Strengthof Weak Ties." AmericanJournalof Sociology78(6):1360-1380.
Granovetter,
Hall, S. 1996 (1989). "New Ethnicities."Pp. 441-449 in StuartHall: CriticalDialogues in CulturalStudies,
editedby D. Morleyand K. H. Chen. London: Routledge.
Heath, A. 2007. "Cross-NationalPatternsand Processesof Ethnic Disadvantage, in Unequal Chances:
EthnicMinoritiesin WesternLabour Markets.Proceedingsof the BritishAcademy,137, edited by A.
Heath and S. Y. Cheung. Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Herder,J.G. 1968 (1784-91). Ideen zur Philosophicder Geschichteder Menschheit.SdmtlicheWerke,vol.
XIII, editedby B. Suphan. Hildesheim,Germany:01ms.
268
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
H. J. 1992. Chancenund Risikenmultikultureller

Bern,
Hoffmann-Nowotny,
Einwanderungsgesellschaften.
Switzerland:Swiss Council on the Sciences.
J.H. P. 2003. "How to Measure Race and Ethnicity."in Advancesin Cross-National
Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik,
Bookfor Demographicand Socio-EconomicVariables,
editedbyJiirgen
Comparison.A EuropeanWorking
H. P. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik
and C. Wolf.New York: Kluwer.
Ignatiev,N. 1995. How theIrishbecame White.New York: Routledge.
Jenkins,R. 1994. "RethinkingEthnicity:Identity,Categorizationand Power." Ethnicand Racial Studies
17(2):197-223.
and Explorations.London: Sage.
Jenkins,R. 1997. Rethinking
Ethnicity:Arguments
Joppke,C. 2005. Selectingby Origin:EthnicMigrationin the Liberal State. Cambridge,MA: Harvard
Press.
University
von
Kalter, F. 2006. "Auf der Suche nach einer Erklarungfur die spezfischenArbeitsmarktnachteile
tiirkischer
Herkunft."Zeitschrift
Jugendlichen
fur Soziologie35(2):144-160.
Kalter, F., N. Granato, and C. Kristen.2007. "DisentanglingRecent Trends of Second Generation's
StructuralAssimilationin Germany."in From Originto Destination:Trendsand Mechanismsin Social
Research,editedby S. Schereret al. Frankfurt,
Stratification
Germany:Campus.
Kao, G. and K. Joyner.2004. "Do Race and EthnicityMatteramong Friends?Activitiesamong Interraand IntraethnicAdolescentFriends." The SociologicalQuarterly
cial, Interethnic,
45(3):557-573.
in Friendship
Kao, G. and K. Joyner.2006. "Do Hispanic and Asian AdolescentsPracticePanethnicity
Choices?" Social Science Quarterly87(5):972-992.
America.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
Kaufmann,E. 2004. The Rise and Fall of AngloKearney, M. 1996. "Die Auswirkungglobaler Kultur,Wirtschaftund Migrationauf die mixtekische
Identitatin Oaxacalifornia." in Integrationund Transformation.
EthnischeMinderheiten,
Staat und
in Lateinamerikaseit ca. 1850, edited by S. Karlen and A. Wimmer.Stuttgart,GerWeltwirtschaft
many:Heim.
Keyes,C. 1976. "Towardsa New Formulationof the Concept of EthnicGroup." Ethnicity3(3):202-213.
Chineseand Korean AmericanIdentities.
Kibria, N. 2002. BecomingAsian AmericanSecond-Generation
Press.
Baltimore,MD: The JohnHopkins University
im Ruhrgebiet,
1870-1945. Soziale Integrationund nationale
Klessman, C. 1978. PolnischeBergarbeiter
SubkultureinerMinderheitin der deutschenIndustriegesellschaft.
Gottingen,Germany:Vandenhoeck&
Ruprecht.
and the InstitutionalContextA TheoreticalExKloosterman,R. 2000. "ImmigrantEntrepreneurship
ploration." in ImmigrantBusiness An Explorationof theirEmbeddednessin the Economic,PoliticoInstitutional
and Social Environment,
editedby J.Rath. Houndsmill,UK: Macmillan.
Kogan, I. 2006. "Labor Marketsand Economic Incorporationamong Recent Immigrantsin Europe."
Social Forces85(2):697-721.
Kristen,C. and N. Granato. 2007. "The EducationalAttainmentof the Second Generationin Germany."
Ethnicities
7(3):343-366.
Politicsof Diversity.Oxford:
Kymlicka,W. 2007. Multicultural
OdysseysNavigatingtheNew International
OxfordUniversityPress.
Lamont, M. 1992. Money, Morals, Manners: The Cultureof the Frenchand AmericanUpper Class.
Chicago, IL: Universityof Chicago Press.
Man Moralityand the Boundariesof Race, Class, and ImmiLamont, M. 2000. The Dignityof Working
Press.
gration.Harvard,MA: Harvard University
Lamont, M. and C. Fleming. 2005. "EverydayAntiracism:Competenceand Religion in the Cultural
Repertoireof the AfricanAmericanElite." Du Bois Review2(l):29-43.
Le Bras, H. 1998. Le demondes origins.Paris: L'edition de l'aube.
Lee, S. M. 1993. "Racial Classificationsin the US Census: 1890-1990." Ethnicand Racial Studies 16:7594.
Lin, N. 1999. "Social Networksand StatusAttainment."AnnualReviewof Sociology25:467-487.
Loewen, J.W. 1971. The MississippiChinese:BetweenBlack and White.Cambridge,MA: Harvard UniversityPress.
Loveman,M. 1997. "Is "Race" Essential?"AmericanSociologicalReview64(4):891-898.
Martin,J.L. and K.T Yeung.2003. "The Use of theConceptualCategoryof Race in AmericanSociology,
1937-99."SociologicalForum18(4):521-543.
in Dritte Weltin Europa,editedby
Meillassoux,C. 1980. "Gegen eine Ethnologieder Arbeitsmigration."
J.Blaschkeand K. Greussing.Frankfurt,
Germany:Syndikat.
Miles, R. 1989. Racism. London: Routledge.
Moerman, M. 1965. "Ethnic Identificationin a Complex Civilization:Who are the Lue?" American
Anthropologist
67(5):1215-1230.
269
Morawska,E. 1994. "In Defenseof theAssimilationModel." JournalofAmericanEthnicHistory13(2):7687.

Nagata, J. 1974. "What is a Malay? SituationalSelectionof EthnicIdentityin a Plural Society."American
Ethnologist1(2):331-350.
Nagel, J. 1994. "ConstructingEthnicity:Creatingand RecreatingEthnic Identityand Culture." Social
Problems4\(\):\52-\16.
Nauck, B. and A. Kohlmann.1999. "Kinshipas Social Capital: NetworkRelationshipsin TurkishMigrant
Families." Pp. 199-218 in New Qualitiesin the Lifecourse.Intercultural
Aspects,edited by R. Richter
and S. Supper. Wiirzburg,Germany:Ergon Verlag.
Nee, V. and J. Sanders. 2001. "Understandingthe Diversityof ImmigrantIncorporation:A Forms-of
Capital Model." Ethnicand Racial Studies24(3):386-411.
Niemonen,J.1997. "The Race RelationsProblematicin AmericanSociology:A Case Studyand Critique."
The AmericanSociologist28:15-54.
O. Schmidtke,and A. Weiss.2006. "CulturalCapital duringMigration-A
Nohl, A. M., K. Schittenhelm,
Multi-LevelApproachto the EmpiricalAnalysisof Labor MarketIntegrationAmongstHighlySkilled
migrants."Forum:QualitativeSocial Research7(3):article14.
Nyden,P., M. Maly, and J. Lukehart.1997. "The Emergenceof Stable Racially and EthnicallyDiverse
Urban Communities:A Case Studyof Nine U.S. Cities." HousingPolicyDebate 8(2):491-534.
Okamoto,D. G. 2003. "Towarda Theoryof Panethnicity:
ExplainingAsian AmericanCollectiveAction."
AmericanSociologicalReview68(6):811-842.
Okamoto, D. G. 2006. "InstitutionalPanethnicity:
BoundaryFormationin Asian-AmericanOrganizing."
Social Forces85(l):\-25.
Okamura,J. 1981. "SituationalEthnicity."Ethnicand Racial Studies4(4):452-465.
Orsi, R. 1992. "The Religious Boundariesof an InbetweenPeople: StreetFeste and the Problemof the
Dark-SkinnedOtherin Italian Harlem, 1920-1990." AmericanQuarterly
44(3):313-347.
EthnicRelations,editedby S.
Padilla, F. 1986. "Ladino Ethnicityin the City of Chicago." in Competitive
Olzak and J.Nagel. New York: Academic Press.
Piguet,E. and A. Wimmer.2000. "Les nouveaux 'Gastarbeiter'?Les refugiessur le marchede travail
and Integration
suisse." Journalof International
2(1):233-257.
Immigration
Portes, A. 1995. "Children of Immigrants:SegmentedAssimilationand its Determinants."in The
edited by
Economic Sociology of Immigration:Essays on Networks,Ethnicityand Entrepreneurship,
A. Portes.New York: Russell Sage.
Portes, A. and R. G. Rumbault. 1990. ImmigrantAmerica: A Portrait.Berkeley,CA: Universityof
CaliforniaPress.
Second Generation.Berkeley,
Portes,A. and R. G. Rumbaut.2001. Legacies: The Storyof theImmigrant
CA: Universityof CaliforniaPress.
Portes,A. and M. Zhou. 1993. "The New Second Generation:SegmentedAssimilationand its Variants."
Annalsof theAmericanAcademyof Politicaland Social Science 530:74-96.
in Germany.Local Managementof Immigrant'sSocial Inclusion."
Radtke,F. O. 2003. "Multiculturalism
Societies5(l):55-76.
Journalon Multicultural
International
"
Rath, J. 1991. Minorisering:de sociale contructievan "etnischeminderheden.Amsterdam,The Netherlands: Sua.
Saks, K. B. 1994. "How Did JewsBecome WhiteFolks?" Pp. 78-102 in Race, editedby S. Gregoryand
R. Sanjek. New Brunswick,NJ: RutgersUniversityPress.
Samson, A. 2000. "Middle Class, Invisible,and Dispersed:EthnicGroup Contact,EthnicAwarenessand
EthnicIdentityAmong Swiss-GermanImmigrantsin California."Swiss Journalof Sociology26(1):3767.
Politicsin New YorkCity. Ithaca, NY:
Sanjek, R. 1998. The Futureof Us All. Race and Neighborhood
CornellUniversityPress.
Sen, A. 1999. Reason beforeIdentity.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Silberman,R. and I. Fournier.2006. "Les secondesgenerationssur le marchedu travailen France: une
penaliteethniqueancree dans le temps.Contributiona la theoriede l'assimilationsegmentee."Revue
francaisede sociologie47(2):243-292.
Journalof Economics87(3):355-374.
Spencer,M. 1973. "Job MarketSignalling."The Quarterly
in America.New York: Atheneum.
and
Class
The
Ethnic
1981.
S.
Race,
Ethnicity,
Myth.
Steinberg,
A Summary
in Employment:
Taran, P., R. Z. de Beijl and I. McClure. 2004. ChallengingDiscrimination
68.
No.
International
Geneva:
Measures.
a
and
Research
ILO,
Paper
Migration
of
Typology
of
and Race.
Telles, E. E. and V. Ortiz. 2008. Generationsof Exclusion.Mexican Americans,Assimilation,
New York: Russel Sage FoundationPress.
Tilly,C. 1998. DurableInequality.Berkeley,CA: Universityof CaliforniaPress.
270
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
Torpey,J. 1999. The Inventionof the Passport:Surveillance,Citizenshipand the State. Cambridge:CamPress.

bridgeUniversity
et leursenfants.Paris: La Decouverte.
Tribalat,M. 1995. Faire France. Une enquetesur les immigres
Nationalism,and State-Making."in The Anthropology
Verdery,K. 1994. "Ethnicity,
of Ethnicity.
Beyond
'EthnicGroupsand Boundaries',editedby H. Vermeulenand C. Govers.Amsterdam,The Netherlands:
Het Spinhuis.
and its Implications."Ethnicand Racial Studies30(6):1024-1054.
Vertovec,S. 2007. "Super-Diversity
Wacquant, L. 1997. "Towards an Analyticof Racial Domination." Political Power and Social Theory
11:221-234.
Waldinger,R. 2003a. "ForeignersTransformed:InternationalMigrationand the Making of a Divided
Studies 12(2):247-272.
People." Diaspora A Journalof Transnational
Waldinger,R. 2003b. "The Sociologyof Immigration:Second Thoughtsand Reconsiderations."Pp. 2143 in Host Societiesand the Receptionof Immigrants,
edited by J.G. Reith. La Jolla,CA: Centerfor
ComparativeImmigrationStudies,UCSD.
Waldinger,R. 2007. "The Bounded Community:TurningForeignersinto Americansin 21st CenturyLos
Angeles."Ethnicand Racial Studies30(7):341-374.
and theSocial Organization
Waldinger,R. and M. I. Lichter.2003. How theOtherHalf WorksImmigration
of CaliforniaPress.
of Labor. Berkeley,CA: University
ChildrenPast and PresentWaldinger,R. and J.Perlmann.1997. "Second GenerationDecline?Immigrant
A Reconsideration."International
Review
Migration
31(4).
Waldron,J. 1995."MinorityCulturesand theCosmopolitanAlternative."
Pp. 93-1 18 in Rightsof Minority
Cultures,editedby W. Kymlicka.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Wallman,S. 1978. "The Boundariesof 'Race': Processesof Ethnicityin England." Man 13(2):200-217.
Waters,M. C. 1990. Ethnic OptionsChoosingIdentitiesin America.Berkeley:Universityof California
Press.
Waters,M. C. 1999. Black Identities.WestIndian ImmigrantDreams and AmericanRealities.Harvard,
MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
und Gesellschaft:Grundrissder verstehenden
Weber, M. 1985 (1922) (1922). Wirtschaft
Soziologie.
Tubingen,Germany:Mohr.
S. 2007. "Sushi-EatingSecondos and Casual Latins PoliticalMovementsand the Emergence
Wessendorf,
of a Latino Counter-Culture
Italiansin Switzerland."Journalof Intercultural
among Second-Generation
Studies28(3):345-360.
and the Race to Nation across EthnicTerrain."Annual
Williams,B. F 1989. "A Class Act: Anthropology
Reviewof Anthropology
18:401-444.
Sozialer Wandelim indianischen
Mittelamerika.
Berlin:Reimer.
Wimmer,A. 1995. Transformationen.
Wimmer, A. 1996. "L'heritage de Herder Nationalisme, migrationset la pratique theorique de
Panthropologie."Tsantsa.Revuede la Societe Suisse d'Ethnologie1:4-18.
und AuBenabschliefiung.
Zur BeziehungzwischenWohlfahrtsstaat
Wimmer,A. 1998. "Binnenintegration
und Migrationssteuerung
in der Schweiz." in Migrationin nationalenWohlfahrtsstaaten.
Theoretische
undvergleichende
editedby M. Bommesand J.Halfmann.Osnabriick,Germany:IMIS.
Untersuchungen,
Wimmer,A. 2002. NationalistExclusionand EthnicConflictsShadows of Modernity.Cambridge:CamPress.
bridgeUniversity
Wimmer,A. 2004. "Does EthnicityMatter?EverydayGroup Formationin ThreeSwiss ImmigrantNeighborhoods."Ethnicand Racial Studies27(1): 1-36.
Wimmer,A. 2008a. "ElementaryStrategiesof Ethnic Boundary Making." Ethnicand Racial Studies
31(6):1025-1055.
Wimmer,A. 2008b. "The Left-Herderian
Ethnicities
Ontologyof Multiculturalism."
8(l):254-260.
Wimmer,A. 2008c. "The Making and Unmakingof EthnicBoundariesA Multi-LevelProcessTheory."
AmericanJournalof Sociology113(4):970-1022.
Wimmer,A. and N. Glick Schiller.2002. "MethodologicalNationalismand Beyond Nation State Formation,Migrationand the Social Sciences."Global Networks2(4):301-334.
WinddanceTwine,F. and C. Gallagher. 2008. "Introduction:The Future of Whiteness:A Map of the
Third Wave', Ethnicand Racial Studies31(l):4-24.
in Evanston,
Woldemikael,T. M. 1989. BecomingBlack American:Haitians and AmericanInstitutions
Illinois.New York: AMS Press.
and RecentResearchon theNew Second
Zhou, M. 1997. "SegmentedAssimilation:Issues,Controversies,
Generation."International
MigrationReview31:975-1008.
Zolberg,A. and L. L. Woon. 1999. "Why Islam is like Spanish: Cultural Incorporationin Europe and
the United States." Politicsand Society27(l):5-38.

Herder's Heritage and The Boundary-Making Approach: Studying Ethnicity in Immigrant Societies

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Herder's Heritage and The Boundary-Making Approach: Studying Ethnicity in Immigrant Societies

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Herder's Heritage and the Boundary-Making Approach: Studying Ethnicity in Immigrant

Herder'sHeritageand the Boundary-Making

HERDER'S HERITAGE AND THE BOUNDARY-MAKING APPROACH

This articlebringstogetherthesevarious worksand offersan integratedaccount

HERDER'S HERITAGEAND THE BOUNDARY-MAKING

showingthat this subsamplingstrategybest fitsthe data. Differencesin the magnitudeof individual-level

HERDER'S HERITAGEAND THE BOUNDARY-MAKING

Figure1. A Herderianand a Barthianworld.

HERDER'S HERITAGE AND THE BOUNDARY-MAKING APPROACH

^ Hakka <=>Holo, "Aborigines^

^Italians, LatinAmericans o Irish^

yChinese American OtherAsian Americans^

Americans Other nations

in the United States.

relevantforpolitics(Padilla 1986;Nagel 1994; Espiritu1992),but not fortheconduct

HERDER'S HERITAGE AND THE BOUNDARY-MAKING APPROACH

of the "one drop" rule to determinewho belongedto a clear-cut

HERDER'S HERITAGE AND THE BOUNDARY-MAKING APPROACH

HERDER'S HERITAGE AND THE BOUNDARY-MAKING APPROACH

in whichall membersof a societyare involved,includinginstitutionalactors such

HERDER'S HERITAGE AND THE BOUNDARY-MAKING APPROACH

in "liberal" labor markets(Kloosterman2000). Ethnic networksand welfarestate

HERDER'S HERITAGE AND THE BOUNDARY-MAKING APPROACH

in the labor marketoftenjumps to Herderian

immigrantsfare in the labor marketor on which niche is occupied by which of

HERDER'S HERITAGE AND THE BOUNDARY-MAKING APPROACH

that the nonethnicdistinctionbetween"established"and "outsiders"is the most

had a Communistpast etc.), therebyeliminating,

HERDER'S HERITAGE AND THE BOUNDARY-MAKING APPROACH

HERDER'S HERITAGE AND THE BOUNDARY-MAKING APPROACH

Castles, S. 1994. "La sociologie et la peur de 'culturesincompatibles'.Commentairessur le rapport

H. J. 1992. Chancenund Risikenmultikultureller

HERDER'S HERITAGE AND THE BOUNDARY-MAKING APPROACH

Morawska,E. 1994. "In Defenseof theAssimilationModel." JournalofAmericanEthnicHistory13(2):7687.

Torpey,J. 1999. The Inventionof the Passport:Surveillance,Citizenshipand the State. Cambridge:CamPress.

You might also like