The Forging of a New America: Lessons for Theory and PolicyWorking Paper #01-01ABSTRACTSegmented Assimilation and its TypesPaths of AcculturationBarriers to AdaptationLessons for TheoryLessons for PolicyInter-generational PatternsBifurcatedREFERENCESThe The CCenter for enter for MMigration and igration and DDevelopmentevelopmentWorking Paper Series • Princeton University The Forging of a New America: Lessons for Theory and Policy by Alejandro Portes and Rubén G. Rumbuat Working Paper #01-01ABSTRACT Results presented in each of the preceding chapters show how the interaction between immigrant parents’ characteristics and contexts of reception plays itself out for different nationalities, forging distinct but undeniably American personalities and outlooks among their children. These findings also make abundantly clear that the process can be quite difficult and yield outcomes at variance with the rosy predictions of a uniform linear ascent, illustrating instead how segmented the process of assimilation has become. There is no single “assimilation” path detectable in the second generation. The adaptation process registers individual variants and exceptions but follows a predictable sequence where outcomes “build on each other,” with earlier successes and failures decisively affecting future outlooks, identities, and achievements. A typology of intergenerational relations in immigrant families is presented to distinguish the principal paths that cultural confrontations between immigrant parents and their children can take; and the various external barriers to successful adaptation that second-generation children face – particularly discrimination – are examined. The chapter concludes by identifying specific lessons for theory and policy drawn from the study.Assimilation and Pluralism The two general theories, or metaphors, that for so long have dominated the discourse on the fate of immigrants in America – assimilation and ethnic pluralism – do not fare very well in light of the evidence in the preceding chapters. True, supporters of the assimilation perspective can point to the near-universal adoption of English, the equally rapid loss of foreign languages, and the widespread shift to American fashions and lifestyles as evidence that the new second generation is indeed “melting.” But against this conclusion rises an equally solid body of evidence pointing to a universal shift from American identities to ethnic ones, increasing perceptions of discrimination against one’s own group, and an overall reassertion of heritage and cultural distinctness that bode ill for predictions of future national homogeneity. Nor is it the case, according to the findings reported in the preceding chapters, that full assimilation carries with it the promise of educational and future occupational success. Learning of English is, of course, a precondition for such outcomes, but the loss of parental language fluency drives a wedge within immigrant families, reducing parental guidance and control at a crucial time in the lives of these adolescents. There is, in addition, a consistent decline in drive and work effort paralleling acculturation and, among some groups at least, the business and professional success of the first generation translate into a more slackened attitude toward academic work, higher rates of school attrition, and greater conflict with still goal-driven parents. If assimilation theory does not provide a good framework for comprehending this complex set of findings, it would be equally risky to assert that pluralism does so. The rediscovered national identities and cultural origins among today’s children of immigrants do not represent linear continuations of what their parents brought along. They are rather a “made-in-the U.S.A.” product born out to these children’s experiences of growing up American. As such, these reaffirmed ethnicities and perceptions of discrimination are integral parts of the process of acculturation, as it takes place in real life. Second-generation youths who loudly proclaim their “Mexicanness” or “Haitianness” often do so in English and with a body language far closer to their American peers than to anything resembling their parents’ culture. Almost forty years ago, Nathan Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan summarized their study of descendants of European immigrants and domestic migrants in New York City by stating that the key point about the vaunted melting pot was that “it did not happen” (1970 [1963]: xcvii). By this, they meant that enduring and important differences characterized the respective ethnic communities and that, contrary to the desires and predictions of assimilationists, they were not at all in a process of dissolution. The other side of the argument, of course, is that the Italians, Jews, Irish, and Puerto Ricans of New York City became something quite different from what their migrant forebears had been. They each became American in their own way as the product of the interaction between what the group brought by way of skills, traditions, and language and what it encountered in the big metropolis. This was the melting pot that did happen. In other cities and with different national origins, the same process is taking place today. Results presented in each of the preceding chapters show how the interaction between immigrant parents’ characteristics and contexts of reception plays itself out for different nationalities, forging distinct but undeniably American personalities and outlooks. These findings also make abundantly clear that the process can be quite difficult and yield outcomes at variance with the rosy predictions of a uniform linear ascent. Assimilation to American society undoubtedly takes place, but the key question is to what sectors of the society and in what conditions does this shiftoccur. For it is not the case that a vast host nation receives each immigrant group with the same attitude or bestows on each the same does of benevolence and assistance. Segmented Assimilation and its Types Findings from the studies presented in this book illustrate how segmented the process of assimilation has become. In some instances, high human capital among immigrant parents combine with a relatively neutral or favorable context of reception to produce rapid mobility into the middle-class. These families possess the necessary wherewithal to support