Raymond-Acculturation and Assimilatioon

8/2/2019 Raymond-Acculturation and Assimilatioon

1/18

Acculturation and Assimilation: A Clarification

Author(s): Raymond H. C. Teske, Jr. and Bardin H. NelsonReviewed work(s):Source: American Ethnologist, Vol. 1, No. 2 (May, 1974), pp. 351-367Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/643554 .

Accessed: 24/04/2012 02:36

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 formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing andAmerican Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toAmerican Ethnologist.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/stable/643554?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/643554?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/18

acculturation and assimilation:a clarificationRAYMOND H. C. TESKE, JR.-Sam Houston State University

BARDIN H. NELSON-Texas A & M University

acculturationprocess or event A single unifying thread to be found in almost all discussions ofacculturation is that it is a process as opposed to a unitary event. Thurnwald emphasizesthis point when he defines acculturation as "a process of adaptation to new conditions oflife" (1932:557). Similarly, Gillin and Raimy refer to acculturation as "those processeswhereby the culture of a society is modified as the result of contact with the culture ofone or more other societies" (1940:371), emphasizing that there are "degrees of accultur-ation." Several writers such as Herskovits (1937), Siegel et a/. (1953), and Spindler(1963) have emphasized that not only is acculturation a process, but that it is a "dynamicprocess.'"individual or group process Contingent on the position that acculturation is a process isthe question of whether it is to be conceived of as an individual process or as a groupprocess. On the one hand, there are those scholars who implicitly treat it as a groupphenomenon. For example, Linton's definition of acculturation makes no mention of theindividual: it is taken to comprehend "those phenomena which result when groups ofindividuals having different cultures come into continuous first hand contact, with sub-sequent changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups" (1940:501).Herskovits (1937) notes that the study of acculturation is concerned with the interactionof cultural groups. Similarly, Bogardus (1949) in discussing cultural pluralism is con-cerned only with culture systems and makes no reference to individual members of theculture. Even The Social Science Research Council Summer Seminar on Acculturation(Siegel et a/. 1953) tacitly treats the group as a single unit when discussing acculturationprocesses. Some writers, such as Devereux and Loeb (1943) in their discussion of an-

The purpose of this paper is to providea clarification of the relation-ship between acculturationand assimilationthroughthe developmentof a conceptual framework.By means of a carefulreview of theoretical-ly relevant literatureprevalentcharacteristicsrelated to each conceptare delineated and discussed in order to identify and synthesize com-mon, as well as contrasting,elements. A comparisonof theseelementsor characteristicss then undertakenpursuantto profferinga clarifica-tion. In short, then, this paper seeks to compareand contrastsalientcharacteristics of the concepts of acculturation and assimilation inorder to clarifyanddelineate the relationshipbetweenthem.

acculturationand assimilation 351


3/18

tagonistic acculturation, mply that acculturation s a group process through their treat-ment of the group as a single unit with no referenceto the individual.Others,thoughthey acknowledgethe individualelement, still are concernedwith the group as the ac-culturating onstituent (cf. Simirenko1966).

On the other hand, individualacculturation s also acknowledged.DohrenwendandSmith, for example, referto the groupas an importantelement in acculturation nasmuchas group dynamics affect the opportunity for individualacculturation.However,theyexplicitly emphasize that acculturationmay be an exclusively individualphenomenonaswell as a group phenomenon,specifying"that individual s most acculturatedwho devi-ates farthest from the norms of the strongest, that is, the most exclusive, orders ofstructural activity in his culture" (1962:35). Similarly,Spiro (1955) and Broom andKitsuse(1955) acknowledge hat acculturationmayoccur at both the group and individu-al levels, houghthey argue hat the acculturationprocessat the individual evel is affectedby the acculturationprocess at the group level. Other writers,such as Gillin and Raimy(1940) and Eaton (1952), categoricallyemphasizethat acculturationmay occur at boththe individualandthe grouplevel.In short, it is axiomatic that acculturationmay be treated as either an individualphenomenon, a group phenomenon, or both, providingcare is exercised to define atwhichlevelof analysis he scholaris operating.In consideringthis position it should be emphasizedthat the acculturationprocessmay obtain between subculturalgroupsas well as between autonomouscultural groups.Thurnwald,for example, has suggested that studies of the acculturation process areapplicableeven for culturalenclaveswithin largerassociations.To exemplifythis positionhe cites "the fact that even in the fold of Catholicism n the UnitedStates there areto befound Polish, Italian, Spanish, and French, who all keep their own traditions"(1932:569). Other scholars who have suggested that the acculturationprocess is ap-plicable in the case of subcultures include Herskovits(1937), Dohrenwendand Smith(1962), and Simirenko (1966), to cite but a few. Severalwritershave also suggested hatthe concept of acculturationis most applicablefor studies of Americanethnic groupswhich, subsequently,are treatedas subcultures(cf. Herskovits1958; Broomand Kitsuse1955; Spiro1955; lanni 1958; Simirenko1966).It should be noted that this position may at first appearto be in contrast with thedefinitionput forth by The Social Science ResearchCouncil SummerSeminaron Accul-turation to the effect that "acculturationmay be defined as culture change that isinitiated by the conjunctionof two or more autonomousculturalsystems"(Siegelet al.1953:974). However, his position is clarifiedby referencefirst to the delimitingcondi-tion "initiated" in the definition, and second, by the statement of the seminarto theeffect that

cultural changes induced by contacts between ethnic enclaves and their encompassing societieswould be definable as acculturative, whereas those resulting from the interaction of factions,classes, occupational groups, or other specialized categories within a single society would not beso considered. Hence, socialization, urbanization, industrialization, and secularization are notacculturation processes unless they are cross-culturally introduced rather than intraculturallydeveloped phenomena (Siegel et a/. 1953:975).-a positionconsistentwith that establishedabove.direction One of the principalconditions necessary or this dynamicprocessto tran-spire is a contact situation;that is, at least two culturalgroupsmust come into continu-ous first-handcontact. This thesis is consistent throughoutthe literature cf. Redfieldet

352 american ethnologist


4/18

a/. 1936:149; Herskovits1958:11; Linton1940:501; Gillin and Raimy1940:371; to citeonly a few). Spicer, in particular,has emphasizedthe role of contact in acculturation.Moreover,he arguesthat alternativetypes of contact situations lead to a widevarietyinthe results of contact, thereby suggestingan important variable in the acculturationprocess(1961:519). This point assists in differentiatingacculturation rom diffusion,thespread of culture traits, "which, while occurring n all instancesof acculturation, s notonly a phenomenon which frequently takes place without the occurrenceof the type ofcontact between people specified (i.e., continuous, first-handcontact) . . . but also con-stitutes only one aspect of the process of acculturation"(Redfield et a/. 1936:149).Assumingcontinuousfirst-handcontact as a necessaryprerequisiteor acculturation, hequestion then arisesas to the direction the acculturationprocesstakes.Specifically,doesthis phenomenonincorporatea one-way, unidirectionalprocessof change,or a two-wayprocess?And, if the former,what are the determinantsof the direction this processwilltake; if the latter, is the degreeof changegreater n one direction than in the other and, ifso, whatis the determinant,or determinants,of this change?Severalwritershavearguedthat acculturation s a unidirectionalprocess,as opposedto a two-way relationship.E. C. Parsons 1936), for example,distinguishes cculturationfrom assimilationby suggesting hat acculturation s unidirectional,whereasassimilationconstitutes a give-and-take elationship.Graves(1967), too, in reportingan investigationof psychological acculturation in a tri-ethniccommunity, treatsacculturationas a uni-directionalphenomenon, with change occurringon the partof ethnic minoritiesin thedirection of a majorityculture. Furthermore,manywriters,while not arguing hat accul-turationis a unidirectionalprocess, treat it as if it were such. In other words, in theirresearchor theoretical discussions, especially in regardto immigrantgroups, culturechanges relevant to the one group, as well as factors contributoryto such changes,areidentified and discussed with no attention given to changes,reciprocalor otherwise, inthe other group or groups. As an illustrationof this point, lanni arguesthat time andplaceshould be importantvariables n acculturationresearch.Hesuggests hat students ofgroupsemigrating o Americafrom WesternEuropecan control for time by identifyingplace of origin and concomitant conditions in America.Specifically, lanni notes that"sincecontemporariesof the immigrant roup remainunderthe old culture, it is possibleto identify culturalchanges which might havecome about even in the absence of con-tact" (1958:43). Furthermore,he suggestsfour time-placesituationsfor consideration:(1) study of the originalprecontactimmigrantculture;(2) the conditions of contact; (3)the present-daylife of the immigrantgroup; and (4) the present-dayculture of theimmigrants'area of origin. Thereby, "changeswhich took place amongthe immigrantsand did not take placeamongthose who remained n the originalcultureare the result ofthe immigrants'acculturativeexperience"(1958:44). No attention is given to the effectof the immigrantgroupon Americanculture nor is it even suggestedthat some traits ofthe immigrantgroup may be adopted by the Americanculture.Onthe other hand, lanniin no way suggestsor denies that a two-way acculturativeprocessmay obtain from thissituation. Numerousotherexamples of this point are to be found in the literature.To citebut a few: Gillinand Raimy(1940), Devereuxand Loeb (1943), Eaton (1952), Broomand Kitsuse(1955), Spiro (1955), Samora(1956), andSilvers(1965). However,with theexception of E. C. Parsons(1936) and Graves(1967), these writers do not argue foracculturationas a unidirectionalprocess;they simply treat it as such, failingto acknowl-edge any two-way, or reciprocal,acculturative nitiative on the part of the otherculturalsystem.

acculturation and assimilation 353


5/18

Ratherthan a unidirectionalperspective,the literaturerevealsconsistentjustificationfor viewingacculturation as a two-way, or reciprocal,process. The often-quoteddefini-tion of Redfieldet a/. illustrates his position whereinacculturation s taken to compre-hend "those phenomenawhich result when groups of individuals ome into continuousfirst-handcontact, with subsequentchanges in the originalculture patternsof either orboth groups" (1936:149, italicsours). Herskovits xhorts that "acculturationhas to dowith continuous contact and hence impliesa morecomprehensiventerchangebetweentwo bodies of tradition"(1958:15, italicsours). Moreover,Foster(1960:6ff) has empha-sized that acculturation s a two-way process,even thoughit hasfrequentlybeen treatedas a one-way process. Analogously, writerssuch as Linton(1940), Siegelet a/. (1953),Bogardus(1949), and Dohrenwendand Smith (1962) implicitly treat acculturationas atwo-way or reciprocalprocess.To summarize,an examination of literatureon acculturationwould indicatethat it isconnotatively a bidirectional process;however, because of their researchor theoreticalperspectivesmany writersare given to treating it as a unidirectionalprocesswhile notdenying its reciprocalnature. It should be acknowledged,though, that this two-wayprocess is not necessarilyegalitarian.Furthermore, ttention should be directedto severalexplanations for variance in the degrees of acculturation,both with regard o unidirec-tional as well as bidirectionalanalysis. Both of these points are developedfurther andillustrated n the discussion hat follows.dominance Congruent with the question of direction is that of dominance;that is,what effect does dominance of one culturalgroup over anotherculturalgroup have onthe degreeand directionof acculturation?Also, what implicationdoes dominancehaveforacculturationat the individuallevel? Several writershave addressedthemselves to theimportanceof dominance for understanding cculturation ncludingThurnwald 1932),Linton (1940), Bogardus(1949), Dohrenwendand Smith (1962), Graves(1967), andFoster(1960).At the group level of analysis, dominancemay be contingenton either politicalornormativestructures. Political dominancewould imply that one culturalgroup is in apositionof powerin the Weberian ense (Weber1922:631). Dominancecontingent on thenormativestructuresuggeststhat one culturalgroup is by acquiescenceplaced in a posi-tion of superiorityby both groups.This position is in agreementwith Spiro(1955), whosuggests hat numerical uperiority s not a necessaryconditionof dominance.

A paperby Dohrenwendand Smith is instructive n providinga framework or identi-fying the extent to which one culturalgroupis dominantover another.They suggestthat"the relativestrengthof any two culturalsystems in contact can be understood n termsof the conditions of admission of its variousordersof structureactivities which eachcanimpose upon the other" (1962:31). They suggesttwo polar types: complete dominancewould exist when culture A can (1) recruit membersof culture B into its activities inpositions of low status, (2) exclude membersof culture B who wish admissionto itsactivitiesin positions of high or equal status, and (3) gain admissionto activitiesof B inpositionsof highstatus (see below for furtherdiscussion).The topicalsituationbetweenwhites and nonwhites in the Union of South Africa is cited as an example.At the otherextreme of the continuum is parity wherein"both A and B havethe ability to excludethe other from positions of high status while at the same time, lackingthe ability torecruit the other at low statuses"(Dohrenwendand Smith 1962:32). Varyingdegreesofstrengthand parityfall along the continuum. In general,as exemplifiedby these writers,dominance is not considereda necessaryprerequisite or the acculturationprocess to



6/18

function. Mundane s this latterpoint mayappear, t should beemphasizedbecausemuchacculturationresearch akes the dominant-subdominantelationshipof the groupsunderinvestigationas given. Herein lies a fruitful areafor future research, namely, how oneculturalgroupcomes to be considered n a positionof dominance,as well as how this roleis legitimated-providing,of course,that it is considered egitimate.To further emphasize the view that dominance is not a necessary prerequisite oracculturation,though it may be an importantvariable n explainingacculturationratesand direction, attention is directed to Bogardus'discussionof culturalpluralism.Bogar-dus suggeststhat there are three types of acculturation.Blind acculturationoccurs whenpeople of different cultureslive nearone anotherand culture patternsare adoptedon achance, hit-or-miss basis. Imposed acculturation implies one people's suppressionofanotherpeople's culture andthe forced impositionof its own behaviorpatternsand ideas.The third type, democraticacculturation,occurs when representatives f culturesviewone another'scultures with respect.Inthe lattertype, in general,no forcedacceptanceofculture occurs. It is in this latter situation that Bogardus uggeststhatculturalpluralismprevails,defined as "the functioning of two or moreculturesystemsat the same timewithin the same nationalunit of humansociety" (1949:125). The major mpetusis thatwherecultural pluralismprevails, his "makespossiblea free and full developmentof allconstructiveculture patternsand it points towardthe developmentof a culturesystemsuperior to currentsystems" (1949:125). As with Dohrenwendand Smith (1962), nodeterministicorientationdelimitingacculturation o instancesof dominant-subdominantrelationshipsis asserted. Rather, such a position is controverted by these and otherscholars.

Althoughit does not speak directly to the problemof dominanceaffectingthe degreeand directionof acculturation, t is of heuristicvalueto interjecthere Linton'sconcept ofdirected culture change referringto "those situations in which one of the groups incontact interferes actively and purposely with the culture of the other" (1940:502).Similarly, Foster has developed the concept of culture conquest in his analysisof theinfluence of Spanish cultureon the New World.Culture conquest identifies those situa-tions in which the government(or the agent of the government)of one culturalgroup"has some degreeof militaryand political control over the recipientpeople,and. . . thiscontrol is utilized to bring about planned changes in the way of life of this group"(1960:11). Foster notes, however, that acculturationstill occurs throughtwo types ofprocesses: the "formal," which applies to those situations in which individuals inauthorityplay a positiveplanningrole, and the "informal,"which results rom individualcontact between membersof the two culturegroups. Also, Thurnwald 1932) and Bogar-dus (1949)-see imposedacculturationpreviouslycited-refer to the ability of one groupto force the acculturationof another group to its culture. Furthermore,Thurnwald(1932) suggeststhat if conflict between culturalgroups s to be avoided,one groupmustbe considered in a superiorposition-especially if groupsare meeting for the first time.Here, too, dominance plays an important role in determiningdirection and degree ofacculturation.At the individual evel of analysis,the effect of dominanceon degreeanddirection ofacculturationwould perforce be contingent on the relationshipof the culturalgroups.This position is supportedby the precedingdiscussionof Dohrenwendand Smith (1962)and Bogardus(1949). Furthermore,Gillinand Raimy havesuggested that the interplaybetween culture and personality must be emphasized, maintaining that "neither theindividualnor the cultural configurationcan be meaningfully understood except byreference o the other"(1940:372).



7/18

Assuming, then, that when a dominant-subdominant elationshipexists between twoculturalgroups,this relationshipdoes affect the directionand degreeof acculturation, hequestionstill remainsas to the direction and the degree of acculturation.Withregard oforcedacculturation, ombined with a position of excessive dominanceon the part of onecultural group, it follows that acculturation will be greater in the direction of thedominant group-at least to the extent that acculturationoccurs. However, as notedbelow, the dominated group may successfully resistacculturation o an extensive degree.In all other cases, the literature uggests that acculturation s greater n the direction ofthe dominant group than in the direction of the subdominantgroup (cf. Young 1929;Hughes 1933; Hedin 1934; Wood 1943; Gist 1967; Press 1969; McQueen1968; Graves1967). This latter point, however, must be weighed in view of the researchbias towardunidirectionalacculturativepatterns as noted previously. Regretfully, herefore, no con-clusive position concerning the influence of dominance on acculturativepatternscan beassertedat this time.values and the out-group A salient concept related to understanding he acculturationprocessis that of values.Specifically,the questionraised s whetheror not the accultura-tion process is contingent on a change in, or acceptanceof, valuestructures.A congruentquestionconcernsorientation towardthe out-group,that is, is the acculturationprocesscontingent on a positiveorientationby the acculturatinggroup towardthe out-group?Atthe group level of analysisthe evidence would suggest that althoughacculturationmayprovide for a change in value orientation, and even adoption of values, this is not anecessarycondition for acculturation o exist. Linton (1940), for example, in referenceto enforced acculturation, suggests that although the adoption of certain culturalele-ments can be acceleratedby enforcement, accompanyingvaluesand attitudescannot beforced. Furthermore,he suggests that even though cultural elements may be acceptedinto a dominatedgroup, they frequentlyareadaptedto fit the culture of this group,thatis, their cultural meaning may be changed. Similarly,Thurnwaldhas arguedthat in theprocessof adoptionselectedobjects, ideas,or institutions"may acquirea differentmean-ing in the newculture"(1932:566).Substantive upportfor this positionis to be found in the worksof severalwriters, woof which are cited herefor exemplification.Notingthat acculturationof all types is "theoutcome of a bilateralchallenge resultingfrom socio-culturalcontact," DevereuxandLoeb (1943:146) providea framework or the delineationandanalysisof whatthey termantagonistic acculturation. This framework centers on two reference points: "(1) thedistinction between resistance o borrowingand resistance o lending; 2) the distinctionbetween resistanceto borrowingor lendingof specific culturalitems as such, and resis-tance to, or antagonism oward,the prospective enderor borrower" 1943:134). In thisregard he writerspresenta three-part ypology to definepossibleoutcomes whena newtrait is adopted: (1) modificationto fit the adopting culture; (2) undermininghe socialstructure with rejectionafter a trial-period; nd (3) a freefloatingsituation, that is, thetrait fails to become an integralpartof the socialstructure.Also worthyof note for thisdiscussion are some suggestedreasonsfor resistance o acculturation.Specifically,theseare a desire to maintaincultural and ethnic distinctivenessand the in-group/out-groupdistinction. The latter includes resistance o borrowingbecauseof a resistance o identifi-cation with the out-group and resistanceto lending because lending would force theborrower nto relationshipswith the in-groupof the lender.Thesereasons or resistance,incidentally,areoperativeboth within culturalgroups,e.g., betweensubculturesor ethnicgroups,as wellas between distinct culturalgroups.



8/18

Of specific import for this discussionis the argumentby the writerthat a distinctionmust be made betweenthe adoptionof the means associatedwith anotherculture and theends associated with that trait or complex. It is in terms of this distinction that theconcept antagonistic acculturationis conceptualized;namely,as resistance o the adop-tion of the goals of the out-group.Three types of antagonisticacculturationare suggest-ed: (1) defensive isolation; (2) "the adoption of new means without a correspondingadoption of the relevantgoals. . . the new meansareadoptedinorderto support existinggoals, sometimes for the specific purpose of resistingthe compulsoryadoption of thegoals of the lendinggroup" (Devereux and Loeb 1943:140); and (3) "dissociativenega-tive acculturation, hat is, the creationof new cultural items of the 'meanstype,' whichare purposelyat variance with, or the reverseof, the life-techniquesof the group fromwhich the groupunderstudy wishes to dissociate itself"(Devereuxand Loeb1943:143)for the purpose of preservingexisting goals. The distinctive character of antagonisticacculturation s delineatedin the abstractwhereinthe writersstate that "whiieresponseto means and techniques may seem positive, response to goals and ends is frequentlynegative" Devereuxand Loeb1943:133).In an empiricalvein Eaton'sconcept of controlled acculturationprovidesadditionalsupport for the position described above. Controlled acculturation s conceptualizedas"the process by which one cultureacceptsa practice romanother,but integrates he newpractice nto its own existing value system. It does not surrender ts autonomyor separateidentity, although the change may involve a modificationof the degreeof autonomy"(1952:338). Drawingupon data collected in the courseof an investigationnto the socialstructure of the Hutterites,Eaton demonstrates he ability of this groupto maintainanautonomoussocial system, yet incorporate nto the culturetraits,behaviorpatterns,andso forth, of the surrounding ulture. Furthermore,he demonstrates heir ability to inte-gratethese culturalelements into their own valuesystem.Each of these writers, Devereuxand Loeb, deductively,and Eaton, inductively, sup-ports the position that the acculturationprocess is not contingent on changes in, noradoption of, values.On the other hand, they do not deny the possibilityof adoptingoracculturating aluesor valuesystems. Moreover, here is evidence that acculturation s notdependenton a positiveorientationtowardan out-group.At the individual evel it is againevident that the acculturationprocessis affected byacculturationat the group level. Subsequently, t is suggested hat althoughacculturationmay providefor a change in valueorientation,and even adoption of values,this is not anecessarycondition for acculturation o occur. Spiro (1955), for example,hassuggestedthat individualacculturationmay involve changes in external behaviorpatterns of theindividualwithout corresponding personality changes. In this same regard,Gillin andRaimy (1940) have suggestedthat there are three salientmanifestationsof acculturationwhich are commonly recognized.These are (1) the materialcultureor traits, (2) institu-tional changes, and (3) changes in personalitystructure. Although they emphasize theimportanceof taking into account the influence of acculturation on personality andpersonalitychange, as well as changesin self-identityand membersof the group, thesewriters note that such changesare in addition to the adoption of material traits andchanges n institutionalstructures.

Albeit some scholars such as Graves (1967) would argue that acculturation mustnecessarilyexercise a dependentrelationshipwith a change in values,as well as a positiveorientation towardthe out-group, his positiondoes not follow theoretically,empirically,or in view of an analysis of acculturation literature. The consistent reference in theliteratureto adoption of material traits unaccompaniedby values in the out-group is



9/18

sufficient to demonstrate hat a change in valuesis not a prerequisite or the accultura-tion process to be operative. Scholars such as Linton (1940) and Devereux and Loeb(1943) have arguedthe theoretical possibility of acculturationoccurringwithout valuechange. Furthermore,Devereux and Loeb have posited that selected elements of theout-group may be adopted in order to support and maintainthe in-group's ocial andvalue systems. Eaton(1952) has demonstratedempirically hat an autonomous culturalgroup, in this case the Hutterites,maypracticeselective acculturationn order to protectits own values.It should be emphasized,however,that this position does not deny the acculturationof valuesnor the possibilityof a positive orientationtowardthe out-groupand its values.For, if the acculturationprocess includesadoption of material raits, behaviorpatterns,norms, institutional changes, and so forth, it certainly follows that coterminous valuesmaybe acculturatedas well.A final point in this regard, then, concerns the question of acceptance by the out-group. Specifically, is acceptance by the out-group necessary or acculturation o occurwithin the in-group? n viewof the precedingdiscussion t does not follow thatacceptanceby the out-group,nor a positiveorientationby the out-group, s necessary.In summary, severalsalient characteristicsof acculturationmay be asserted. (1) Ac-culturation s a process,not an end result.(2) This processmay be conceivedof both as agroup phenomenon and as an individual phenomenon; however,acculturationat theindividual evel is generallyinfluencedby conditions of acculturationat the group level.Furthermore, his process is operativebetween subculturesas well as between autono-mous culturalgroups. (3) Althoughacculturations frequentlytreated as a unidirectionalprocessand may be consideredas such in the ideal-type sense, it definitely is a bidirec-tional process, that is, it is a two-way, reciprocal relationship. (4) Direct contact is anecessary prerequisitein order for acculturationto occur. (5) Dominance is a salientfactor in determiningdirection and degree of acculturation, houghthe relationshipofdominanceto direction and degree of acculturation s unclear.On the other hand,ac-culturation may occur in the absence of a dominant-subdominant elationship. 6) Ac-culturation is not contingent on a changein values,althoughvalues may be acculturated.(7) A positiveorientationtowardthe out-groupon the partof the acculturating rouporindividualis not a necessarycondition. (8) Acceptanceor a positiveorientationby theout-grouptoward the acculturatinggroupis not required.(9) Acculturation s not con-tingenton changein referencegrouporientation.assimilation

Having delineated the primary elements and characteristicsof the acculturationprocess, attention is now focused on a similaranalysisof assimilation.An underlyingassumption guiding the discussion which follows is that acculturation and assimilation areseparate processes. Furthermore, hough they may be interrelated-a point discussed indetail later-they are not interdependent.Admittedly,thisassumptionmay appear o thereaderas tautological, but there is ample evidence in the literature-as demonstratedbelow-that frequentlytheseconcepts havebeen treatedas one and the sameor, at times,as stagesof one another.process or result As with acculturation,assimilation s consistently treatedas a process.Gumplowicz(1883), one of the early scholarsto addresshimself to assimilation,con-siders it to be a dynamicforce insociety. ParkandBurgess,writingon "Assimilation"n



10/18

their Introduction to the Science of Sociology, identify it as "aprocess of interpenetra-tion and fusion in which persons and groups acquire the memories,sentiments, andattitudes of other persons or groups;and, by sharingtheir experienceand history,areincorporatedwith them in a common cultural ife" (1924:735, italicsours).Two decades earlier Simons (1901:791) emphasizedthat assimilationis not to beconceived of as a result, but as a.process. Similarly, Hirsch (1942) has arguedthatassimilation is not a specific concept that can be dichotomized;rather,assimilation s aprocess, continuous in nature and varyingin degree. Others who have supportedtheposition that assimilation s a process nclude Duncan(1929:185), Woolston(1945:416),Johnson (1963:296), andGordon(1964:71).With regardto assimilationas process it should also be noted that, as in the case ofacculturation,direct contact is required.Parkand Burgess 1924:736-737), for example,stress the importanceof contact in the assimilationprocess.Consonantsupportfor thispositionis found in Simons(1901:800) and DohrenwendandSmith (1962:35).

values, identity, and the out-group However, the assimilation process differs fromacculturation in at least two specific respects. First, whereas acculturationdoes notrequireout-groupacceptance,assimilationdoes requiresuch acceptance.Second, unlikeacculturation,assimilationrequiresa positiveorientationtoward the out-group. Further-more, it requires identification with the out-group. Each of these points is developedmorefully later.The first point of differentiation, that assimilationrequiresacceptance by the out-group, is adequatelysupported in the literature. For example, Parkand Burgess, n theirdefinition of assimilation,note that it is a process "in which personsandgroupsacquirememories,sentiments, and attitudes of other personsor groups;and by sharing n theirexperience and history, are incorporated with them in a common cultural life"(1924:734, italics ours). In a subsequent apology in the Encyclopediaof the SocialSciences, Parknotes that "in the United States an immigrantsconsideredassimilatedassoon as he has acquiredthe languageand the social ritual of the nativecommunity andcan participate, without encountering prejudice, in the common life, economic andpolitical" (1930:281). A similarposition is established by Hirsch who, after a carefulreview of the literature on assimilation,suggests that assimilation is "the process ofbecoming a member of a community" (1942:39). Becominga memberof a community,then, is correlative to acceptance by that community. Of course this is not to say thatinteractionwith that community cannot occur without acceptanceby the community.Also, lack of membership n the community does not prohibitacculturation rom occur-ring.Empirically, upport for this position is well-documentedby Spiro (1955) who, afterhaving carefully surveyed the literature related to acculturationof Americanethnicgroups, notes a distinctive difference between acculturationand assimilation-that as-similation is dependent on acceptance by the dominantgroup. Similarly,Dohrenwendand Smith in their paper"Towarda Theory of Acculturation"suggestthat "inassimila-tion, the contact situation is marked by recruitmentof membersof culture A into thestructuredactivities of culture B in positions of equal status" (1962:35). These writers,too, emphasizethe distinctionbetween acculturation,which does not requireout-groupacceptance, and assimilation,which does require such acceptance. Furthersupportforthis position is found in a paper by Broom and Kitsusein whichthey argue hat "accessto participation in the dominant institutions is a precondition for the validationof



11/18

acculturationand consequentlyfor assimilation" 1955:48). Finally, the writersempha-size that regardless f the degree of acculturation,assimilationdoes not occuruntilsuchtime as the acculturation s accompaniedby acceptanceon the partof the host society.A further point in this connection concerns the manifestationof acceptance by theout-group.More specifically, what constitutes "out-groupacceptance" with respect toassimilation?Park and Burgess (1924:736-737) providea meaningfulexplanationwhenthey suggest that assimilationincorporatesboth secondaryand primarygroupcontact,whereasacculturationonly requirescontact of a secondarygroup nature.In other words,out-groupacceptance may be consideredto have been initiated when the individualorgroup is permittedinteractionin primarysocialrelations.Significantly,whereasassimila-tion is to be treatedas a process,the extent to which an individual r group is permittedto participate n primarygrouprelations hen servesas a measureof out-groupacceptanceand, hence, the degreeof assimilation.The second point of differentiation,that assimilation,unlike acculturation, equiresapositiveorientation toward the out-groupand, furthermore, hat it requires dentificationwith the out-group, is also supported in the literature. As early as 1901 Simons, inreviewing he scant literatureon assimilationat that time, noted that assimilationrequiresa "psychiccondition necessitatinga consciousnessof kind" (1901:800). Similarly,Parkand Burgess (1924), in their classic discussionof assimilation,argue that a "unity ofthought" is required.They also emphasizethat assimilation is dependent on internalchangesand not external changes alone. In this same regard,Woolstonarguesthat as-similation is more than "simply making individualsalike in appearanceor manners"(1945:416); rather, t incorporates he idea of "cooperative ulture,"whereindividuals-in this case immigrants-cometo be partof an association,as well as contributing o thecorrection and improvementof this association. Assimilation,then, occurs when "anindividualwho enters into [social relationsabsorbs ocialmeaning rom them and trans-mits its significance o others"(Woolston1945:424). As with ParkandBurgess,Woolstonalso emphasizesthat the assimilationprocess comprehends nternalchange,ratherthanexternalchangealone.Furthersupport is providedby Johnson who arguesthat wheneverthe term assimila-tion is used, care must be exercised to distinguishbetween external assimilationandsubjectiveassimilation. The term external assimilation s introducedto denote the mani-fest changes which lead to similarityof appearanceand actions, whereassubjectiveas-similation "extends to the psychologicallife of the immigrantwho seeks to identify"(1963:295). Johnson posits that externaland subjectiveassimilationoccur independentof one another, and that they may occur in varyingdegrees.Subsequently,the writerpresentsa definition of assimilation that takes into account both the externaland thesubjectiveaspects of assimilation:

assimilation is defined here as a process of change during which the immigrant seeks to identifyhimself in various respects with members of the host group and becomes less distinguishablefrom them. Both external and subjective assimilation form the components of the process. Onewithout the other is only partial assimilation (Johnson 1963:296).Utilizingdata collected amongPolishimmigrantso Australia,Johnsondemonstrates hatexternal indicators,such as languageand naturalization,werenot significantlycorrelatedwithsubjective actorsof assimilation.It has been demonstratedpreviouslythat acculturationmay occur without a subse-quent change in the orientationof a culturalgroup; hat is, a positiveorientationtowardthe out-groupis not a necessaryconditionof acculturation.Theconverseof this principlemay be appliedto assimilation. Linton, for example, impliesthe necessityfor a positive



12/18

orientationtoward the out-groupwhen he notes that "certainindividualsn the sociallyinferiorgroup may not desire to be assimilatedand may emphasizethe distinctivefea-turesof their own culture on that account" (Linton 1940:513, italicsours). BroomandKitsuseprovide implicitsupportfor this view in their discussionof validationof accultur-ation in which they note that "they [ethnic groupsin an open society] then havethealternativesof maintaininga peripheralposition in the social orderor venturing he risksand rewardsof validating heir acculturation" 1955:44). Moreexplicitly, reinforcementfor this position is found in a discussionby Eaton of controlledacculturation n whichassimilation s taken as

a process of acculturation, in which an individual has changed so much as to become dissociatedfrom the value system of his group, or in which the entire group disappearsas an autonomouslyfunctioning system. Acculturation, on the other hand, is reservedfor those changes in practiceor beliefs which can be incorporated in the value structure of the society, without destructionof its functional autonomy (1962:339).To recapitulate,there is sufficient support, both tacit and explicit, for the positionthat assimilationrequiresboth a positiveorientationtoward,and an identificationwith,the out-groupon the partof the assimilatingndividualor group,and that assimilationscontingent on acceptance by the out-group. Furthermore, here is also evidence thatassimilationcomprises a subjective,or internal,changeas well as an externalchange.Thissuggeststhat assimilation nvolveschanges n values.Whereas t wasconcludedthat valuesmay be an element of acculturation,but that changein, or acceptanceof, values s not anecessary condition for acculturation to occur, it does follow from the precedingdis-cussion that a change in valueorientation s required or assimilation o occur-namely, apositive orientation toward, and identificationwith, the valuesof the out-group.Thismust be distinguished rom the relationshipof valuesto acculturation, uch that selectedtraits,behaviorpatterns, nstitutions,and so forth of groupBcome to be valuedby groupA or its memberswithout a proximatechangein referencegroup.In view of the preceding discussion, it may be postulated that if assimilationis tooccur, there must be a change in the referencegroup suchthat groupA, or a memberofgroup A, holds a positiveorientationtoward group B and, congruently, valuesmember-ship in that group. Furthermore, roupB then becomesgroupA's,or a memberof groupA's, referencegroupandsubsequentsourceof valueorientations.

individual or group process It has been previouslydemonstratedin this paper thatacculturationmay be viewedas either an individualprocessor a groupprocess, providingcare is exercised to define at which level of analysis he scholar s operating.The obversequestionshould also be approachedas to whetherassimilation s to be treated as a groupprocess,an individualprocess,or possiblyboth.Some writersinferentiallysupport the view that the assimilationprocess s strictly anindividualphenomenon.Woolston, for example, suggeststhat assimilationoccurs when"an individualwho enters into [social] relationsabsorbsmeaning rom them and trans-mits its significanceto others" (1945:424, italicsours).Similarly,Johnson(1963), Heiss(1969), and Dohrenwendand Smith (1962) restrict their discussionsof assimilation othe individual evel. On the other hand,scholars uchas Simons (1901) and Siegel(1953)restrict their discussionsof assimilation o the group level, thereby implying that it is agroupprocess.Parkand Burgess 1924:735) combine both positionsby suggesting hat assimilationincorporates"groupsand persons,"as does Hirschwho, aftersystematicallyanalyzing herelevantliteratureconcerningassimilation,asserts that "the agents in this [assimilation]



13/18

processare either personsor groups" (1942:36). Duncan(1929), writing nPublicationsof the American Sociological Society, provides further supportfor the position thatassimilation nvolvesboth individualsand groups. Gordon(1964), writingon the natureof assimilation,also treats it as both an individualanda group phenomenon;however,hetends to move betweenthe two levels indiscriminately-thoughhis may be due in part tohis emphasison ideal types without sufficient reference o empiricaldata.The referencescited above would suggest,then, that the assimilationprocessmay betreated as either an individualor a group phenomenon.There is more than sufficientevidence that assimilation is an individualphenomenon. Furthermore, n light of theearlierdiscussionconcerningreferencegroup change and out-groupacceptance,assimila-tion is clearlyan individualphenomenon.On the otherhand, even though the referencesuted provide tacit support for assimilationas a group process, further explication isneededon this point.An importantdistinctionwhichshould be consideredhereis that of isolated groupsasopposed to reinforcedgroups. For in light of the earlierdiscussionof referencegroupchangeand out-groupacceptance,considerationof groupassimilationmust be in terms ofa "collective conscience." A group whichassimilatesmust not only be accepted by theout-group; t must also identify with it. Therefore, in the caseof reinforcedgroups,thatis, groupsthat continually receivereinforcement roma largerparentculturalgroup, it isnot possible to speak of group assimilation.For example, the Mexican-Americanub-culture continually receives reinforcementby way of immigrantsrom Mexico. Hughes'(1933) discussionof the French-Canadians,s well as Antonovsky's 1956) investigationof second-generationJewish males, provideadditionalexamplesof cultural groups orsubculturalgroupswhose culture is continually being reinforcedby contacts with repre-sentativesof the parent culture. Similar examples are to be found amongother immi-grant groupsto America,Australia,and so forth. In such cases it is only possible, then,to speakof individualrather hangroup assimilation.On the other hand,culturalgroupisolation does not necessarilyead to groupassimila-tion. (By cultural group isolation is meant that the group is removedfrom either asupporting cultural or subculturalgroup.) In actuality, isolated cultural groups maydevelopin severalways. The groupmay resist assimilationas a whole. This possibility sexemplified by the Hutterites' use of controlled acculturation(Eaton 1952) and byDevereux and Smith's (1943) discussion of antagonisticacculturation.This is not tosuggest, of course, that individual membersof these groups may not assimilateintoanother group. Furthermore, t is possible that the attrition ratefrom individualassimila-tion may be so extensiveas to effect the dissolutionof the culturalgroup.The profliga-tion of the RussianMolokancommunity in Los Angelesillustrates he latterpossibility(Young 1929). Withoutreinforcement,except throughprocreation, his distinctculturalgroupceased to exist as succeedinggenerationsassimilated nto the broader ommunity.It should be noted, however,that although n the finalanalysis he entiremembership fthe RussianMolokancommunity assimilated,this was the resultof individualattritionand not a movementby the group n toto.The converse situation is that of a culturalgroupwhichcollectivelyidentifieswithanout-groupand desiresto assimilate.The Anglo-Indiansof India)epitomizethis situation(Hedin 1934; Gist 1967). However,even in this instance individualmembersmay beacceptedinto the out-groupmuchfaster thanthe collectivity.It should also be noted that situations prevail n which individualsare not associatedwith a distinct culture group, yet conceivably they may identify with and desire toassimilateinto a specific culturegroup.This situation is illustratedby the mulattoesin



14/18

the United States (cf. Reuter 1917; Stonequist 1935), the mestizos, of Brazil(Slotkin1943), and the hybrids of Hawaii (Smith 1934). It is also possible that these unas-similatedindividualsmay form a new, distinctculturalgroup-particularly f assimilationis precluded-as did the Russiancreoles in Alaska(Wood1943) and, in recentyears,theEurasians f India(Gist 1967).Finally, there are situationssuch as that of the Negropopulation n the UnitedStateswhereinthere exists no distinct or identifiable culturalgroupper se and, therefore, it isnot possibleto speakof groupassimilation,althoughreferencemay be made to therateof assimilation with respect to individual group members.

In summary, the assimilationprocessmay be treated as either a groupor an individualphenomenon. However, group assimilationcan only be considered in the sense of a"collective conscience";otherwise,one can only speakof an attrition rate of individualmembers who are assimilating.Furthermore, n the case of culturalgroups which arecontinually reinforced-such as the Mexican-Americanubculture-groupassimilation snot feasible. On the other hand, culturalgroup isolation, though imperative or groupassimilation,does not necessarilydictate that group assimilationwill occur. However, t isconceivable that the attritionrate will be so extensiveas to lead to the dissolutionof anisolated culturalgroup. Finally, there are situations whereinthere exists no distinct oridentifiablegroup, thereby making it impossibleto speak of groupassimilation,althoughreference may be made to the rate of assimilation of group members.

direction and dominance A final salient point about assimilation is its directionalquality. Specifically, is assimilation to be related as a unidirectionalprocess or as atwo-way relationship?Two sourcesaddressthis problemdirectly; both supportthe uni-directionalposition. Simonsstates that "there aretwo elementsconcerned n the processof assimilation-the active and the passive-the assimilatingpeople and those being as-similated"(1901:803), suggesting hat assimilation nvolvesmovement rom one culturalgroupto another.Simonscontinuesby statingthat "consequentlyassimilationhasa dualcharacter-is moreor lessreciprocal n its action-a processof giveand take to a greaterorless degree"(1901:803); this referenceto reciprocitysupportsthe previouslyestablishedposition that assimilationrequiresboth a changein referencegroup and acceptance bythe out-group,but does not deny that assimilation s a unidirectionalprocess.The secondsource, the report of The Social Science ResearchCouncilseminaron acculturation, seven moreexplicit in this regard,notingthat "assimilationmpliesan essentiallyunilateralapproximationof one culturein the direction of the other"(Siegel eta!. 1953:988).

Much of the literatureconsistently impliesthat assimilation s a unidrectionalprocess.The previouslyquoted definition of Parkand Burgess 1924:735) and their subsequentdiscussionso implies.Gordon(1964:60-83), in his deliberationof the natureof assimila-tion, consistently treats it as a one-way process.SimilarlyDuncan(1929), in his discus-sion of the process of assimilationamong immigrants o America, implies that it isunidirectional, as do Broom and Kitsuse (1955:48), Eaton (1952:329), Spiro(1955:1244ff.), Dohrenwendand Smith(1962:35ff.), andWoolston(1945). Furthermore,with the exception of one writer, E. C. Parsons(cited in Herskovits1958:7-11), nosupport was found for the position that assimilationmay be considered a two-wayprocess. Parsons, ncidentally, suggestedthat the majordistinctionbetweenacculturationand assimilation is that the former is a one-way process while the latter is a two-wayprocess-a position which may be summarilydismissedon the basis of evidence alreadycited in this paper.



15/18

The references ited so far andthe discussion n this papersuggest hat assimilations aunidirectional rather than a two-way process. If assimilation requires a change inreferencegroup, as well as acceptanceby an out-group, hen it is axiomatic that assimila-tion at the individual evel is unidirectional.Whilean out-groupcan become the individu-al's referencegroupand canaccept or not accept the individual, t is not conceivable hatthe conversemay obtain. This does not, of course, preclude he possibility that individualmembersof group A may assimilate into group B while at the same time individualmembersof groupB areassimilating nto groupA.The same principleapplies at the group level. Providinghat an isolatedculturalgroupcollectively desires assimilationinto another group, designated as the "host group"byJohnson(1963), then assimilationmust be unidirectional, hat is, in the direction of thehost group. It does not follow that the host group may reciprocate.In other words,onegroupassimilatesand the other groupaccepts or rejects.In consideringdirection, brief attention should also be paid to the role of dominancein the assimilationprocess; however, as in the case of acculturation,writersusuallytakethe role of dominance as given; that is, that assimilationalways occurs in the directionof a dominant group (cf. Simons 1901; Broom and Kitsuse 1955; Spiro 1955). Regret-tably, empiricalevidenceconcerning he roleof dominance,both with respectto rate anddirection(i.e., from subdominant o dominantand the converse),is lacking.Nevertheless,at the individual level it is self-evident that though dominance may be a deterrent toassimilation,it is still conceivable that membersof either a subdominantor dominantgroup may assimilate into the other group-whether dominance is based on power or anormativestructure (see above). Furthermore,at the group level there is no reasontoassume that a dominant group would assimilate nto a subdominantgroup.Other thanthese cursoryobservations he role of dominance nassimilationremainsunresolvedand,as withacculturation, houldprovea fruitfulareafor future investigation.summary

The salient congruities and differences in the characteristicsof acculturationandassimilationare delineatedin Figure1. Basedon these factors severalconclusions may bedrawnconcerningthe relationshipof these two concepts. Initiallyit may be postulatedthat acculturationand assimilationare separate processes. Assimilationis not, as somehavesuggestedor implied,a phaseor end-productof acculturation cf. Gordon1964:71;Redfieldet a!. 1936:149; Eaton 1952:339); rather, t is a separateand distinct process.This is not to deny, of course, that assimilationis dependenton acculturation,as evi-denced by the requiredadoption of out-groupvalues.On the other hand, considering hetwo necessaryconditions of referencegroup changeand acceptance by the out-group, tcan readily be demonstratedthat assimilationis not dependenton some nth degreeofacculturation,nor does assimilationnecessarily ollow after some evanescentstage ofacculturationhas been experienced. It is evident, for example,that there areindividuals,as well as groups,who may be highlyacculturated n termsof some given out-groupand,furthermore, hese individuals r groupsmay strongly identify with and seek to assimilateinto the out-group.If, however,they are not accepted by the out-group, hen assimilationhas not begun. Forexample,the Eurasian ommunityof Indiawashighlyacculturatednterms of British culture and sought to assimilateinto the Britishcommunity, yet wasdenied membership (Gist 1967). A similar situation may be found among Japanese-Americans(Broomand Kitsuse1955), as well as many Negro-Americans. he antithesisof this situation would be low or limitedacculturation,but a high degreeof assimilation.



16/18

ACCULTURA TION ASSIMILA TION1. A dynamic process A dynamic process

2. May be treated as either an individual May be treated as either an individualor a group process or a group process3. Involves direct contact Involvesdirect contact4. Two-way, that is, may occur in Unidirectionalboth directions5. Does not require change in values, Change in values requiredthough values may be acculturated6. Reference group change not required Reference group change required7. Internal change not required Internalchange required8. Out-group acceptance not required Out-group acceptance required

Figure 1. Comparison of the salient characteristics of acculturation and assimilation.

For example, artists or scientists immigratingo Americamay be accepted on an equalfooting in American ociety, yet be poorlyacculturated cf. Silvers1965).A third possibility is that of an individual who is accepted by the out-group,andpossibly is even highly acculturated n termsof the out-group,but does not changehisreference group. Siu has exemplified such a type in "the sojourner,"defined as "astrangerwho spends many years of his lifetime in a foreign country without beingassimilatedby it" (1952:34). Examples ncludethe foreign missionary, oreignstudents,diplomats,researchanthropologists,and internationalournalists.In summary, then, it may be concluded that: (1) acculturationand assimilationareseparate,distinct processes;(2) acculturationmay occur independentlyof assimilation;(3) acculturation is a necessary,though not a sufficient, condition for assimilationtooccur;and (4) the extent to whichacculturationmust occurbeforeassimilationbegins isindefinite.

references citedAntonovsky, Aaron1956 Toward a Refinement of the "Marginal Man"Concept. Social Forces 35:57-62.Bogardus, Emory S.1949 Cultural Pluralism and Acculturation. Sociology and Social Research 34:125-1 29.Broom, Leonard, and John 1. Kitsuse1955 The Validation of Acculturation: A Condition to Ethnic Assimilation. American Anthro-pologist 57:44-48.Devereux, George, and Edwin M. Loeb1943 Antagonistic Acculturation. American Sociological Review 8:133-147.Dohrenwend, Bruce P., and Robert J. Smith

1962 Toward a Theory of Acculturation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 18:30-39.Duncan, H. G.1929 A Study of the Process of Assimilation. Publications of the American Sociological Society23:1 84-187.Eaton, Joseph1952 Controlled Acculturation: A Survival Technique of the Hutterites. American SociologicalReview 17:331 -340.



17/18

Foster, George M.1960 Culture and Conquest: American Spanish Heritage. Chicago: Quadrangle.Gillin, John, and Victor Raimy1940 Acculturation and Personality. American Sociological Review 5:371-380.Gist, Noel P.1967 Cultural versus Social Marginality: The Anglo-Indian Case. Phylon 28:361-375.Gordon, Milton M.1964 Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. NewYork: Oxford University Press.Graves, Theodore D.1967 Psychological Acculturation in a Tri-ethnic Community. Southwestern Journal of Anthro-pology 23:337-350.Gumplowicz, Ludwig1883 Der Rassenkampf. Innsbruck: Wagner.Hedin, Elmer L.1934 The Anglo-Indian Community. American Journal of Sociology 40:165-179.Heiss, Jerold1969 Factors Related to Immigrant Assimilation: Pre-migrationTraits. Social Forces 47:422-428.Herskovits, Melville J.

1937 The Significance of the Study of Acculturation for Anthropology. American Anthropologist39:259-264.1941 Some Comments on the Study of Acculturation. American Anthropologist 43:1 -10.1 958 Acculturation: The Study of Culture Contact. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith.Hirsch, Walter1942 Assimilation as Concept and Process. Social Forces 21:35-59.Hughes, Everett C.1933 The French-English Margin in Canada. American Journal of Sociology 39:1-11.lanni, Francis A.1958 Time and Place as Variables in Acculturation Research. American Anthropologist 60:39-46.Johnson, Ruth1963 A New Approach to the Meaningof Assimilation. Human Relations 16:295-298.Linton, Ralph1940 The Distinctive Aspects of Acculturation. In Acculturation in Seven American IndianTribes. New York: Appleton-Century. pp. 501-520.McQueen, Albert J.1968 Education and Marginalityof African Youth. Journal of Social Issues 24:179-194.Park, Robert E.1930 Assimilation, Social. In Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Volume 11. New York: Mac-millan. pp. 281-283.Park, Robert E., and Ernest W. Burgess1924 Assimilation. In Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress. pp. 734-783.Parsons, E. C.1936 Mitla, Town of Souls. University of Chicago Publications in Anthropology. Chicago: Uni-versity of Chicago Press.Press, Irwin1969 Ambiguity and Innovation: Implications for the Genesis of the Culture Broker. AmericanAnthropologist 71:205-21 7.Redfield, Robert, Ralph Linton, and Melville J. Herskovits1936 Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation. American Anthropologist 38:149-1 52.Reuter, E. B.1917 The Superiority of the Mulatto. American Journal of Sociology 23:38-106.Samora, Julian, and William N. Deane1956 Language Usage as a Possible Index of Acculturation. Sociology and Social Research40:307-311.Siegel, Bernard J., Evon Z. Vogt, James B. Watson,and Leonard Broom1953 Acculturation: An Exploratory Formulation. American Anthropologist 55:973-1002.Silvers, Ronald J.1965 Structure and Values in the Explanation of Acculturation Rates. British Journal of Sociol-

ogy 16:68-79.Simirenko, Alex1966 Mannheim's Generational Analysis and Acculturation. British Journal of Sociology17:292-299.Simons, Sarah E.1901 Social Assimilation. American Journal of Sociology 6:790-822.



18/18

Siu, Paul C. P.1952 The Sojourner. American journal of Sociology 58:34-44.Slotkin, J. S.1943 The Status of the MarginalMan. Sociology and Social Research 28:47-54.Smith, WilliamC.1934 The Hybrid in Hawaii as a MarginalMan. American Journal of Sociology 39:459-468.Spicer, Edward H., Ed.1961 Perspectives in American Indian Culture Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Spindler, George D.1963 Education and Culture: Anthropological Approaches. New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston.Spiro, Melford E.1955 The Acculturation of American Ethnic Groups. American Anthropologist 57:1240-1 252.Stonequist, Everett V.1935 The Problem of the MarginalMan. American journal of Sociology 41:1-12.Thurnwald, Richard1932 The Psychology of Acculturation. American Anthropologist 34:557-569.Watson, James B.1963 Caste as a Form of Acculturation. Southwestern journal of Anthropology 19:356-379.Weber, Max1922 Wirtschaftund Gesellschaft. Tubingen: J. C. Mohr.Wood, MargaretMary1943 The Russian Creoles of Alaska as a MarginalGroup. Social Forces 22:204-208.Woolston, Howard1945 The Process of Assimilation. Social Forces 23:41 6-424.Young, Pauline V.1929 The Russian Molokan Community in Los Angeles. American journal of Sociology35:393-402.

Date of Submission: August 24, 1973Date of Acceptance: November 6, 1973


Documents

Raymond-Acculturation and Assimilatioon