Assimilation in American Life: An Empirical Assessment of Milton Gordon’s Multi-dimensional Theory

Abstract

This study empirically assesses Milton Gordon's theory of interrelated stages of assimilation. I focus on one small but salient religious minority—American Jews—to show how structural assimilation is associated with other dimensions of assimilation: marital, identification, and behavior reception. Findings from multivariate analyses suggest that structural assimilation encourages Jews to marry non-Jews. Such a marriage composition has become a major determinant of identificational assimilation, with non-Jewish social relationships having important if somewhat weaker association with group identification. Social and economic attainments are moderate factors of identificational behavior that may sometimes strengthen, rather than weaken, religio-ethnic identification. The various components of structural assimilation are not significant for reception assimilation. The findings are discussed in relation to the functionalism concept, in connection with the more recent literature on immigration and assimilation and in view of the changing social context of America in the second half of the twentieth century from the dominance of the melting pot ethos to cultural pluralism.

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of this article was presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Washington DC, 30 March–2 April 2011 (poster session) and at the Second International Krakow Study of Religious Symposium, “Religions: Fields of Research, Methods, and Perspectives”, Krakow, Jagiellonian University, 25–27 November 2013. I acknowledge support from the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant, funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2013S1A5B8A01055017). The comments received from the two anonymous referees of the Journal of Contemporary Religion were especially helpful. Responsibility for the contents of this article rests solely with the author.

Notes

1. Gordon defined structural assimilation as the development of primary-group relationships, incorporation into social networks and institutions, and entrance into the social structure of the majority society. Subsequent researchers introduced explicit empirical indicators of structural characteristics and called attention to education, occupation, and income (Alba and Nee). Furthermore, Gordon omitted geographic mobility and dispersion as a component of structural assimilation, even though residential patterns are significant for paradigms of assimilation (Massey). Accordingly, this review of assessments of Gordon’s theory (as well as the analysis that follows) treats structural assimilation comprehensively along geographic, social, and economic characteristics. As far as identificational assimilation is concerned, Gordon defines this stage as the development of a sense of peoplehood based entirely on the host society. Since this implies “that assimilation involves the obliteration of identities cast in terms of ancestral origins” (Alba, Ethnic 311) and given that identification is the translation of group belonging into beliefs, attitudes, and distinct group behaviors (Erikson; Hogg and Abrams), I postulate that identificational assimilation should be reflected practically in the distancing from religious and institutional patterns associated with a specific religio-ethnic minority. More straightforward is the interpretation of amalgamation as the intermixture of two gene pools representing two populations (Gordon).

2. Notably, a recent qualitative study found that some intermarried Jewish women retain their strong Jewish identity in multiple ways (McGinity).

3. Friendship in high school is a proxy of the extent of entrance into primary social networks of the core population. Thus friendship patterns in high school are exogenous to other types of assimilation. Notably, friendship in high school is a strong predictor of friendship groups in later stages of the life cycle, e.g. college (Fishman).

4. The geographic variables reflect the characteristics of place of residence at the time of the survey. It is possible that some respondents moved there after marrying. Since NJPS also inquired into place of residence five years ago, I tested Models 3 and 4 solely for the 1995–2000 marriage cohort (N = 183) and introduced region of residence and ethnic concentration at the beginning of the period (1995). This approach ensured that the geographic characteristics are exogenous to the marriage. The findings accord with those for the entire sample population; they show that Jews who lived in the West in 1995 were more likely to marry non-Jewish spouses than counterparts in the Northeast (the reference group). The odds ratio (3.431 at p<.05) proved to be statistically insignificant after introduction of the interaction term of West by ethnic concentration.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Uzi Rebhun

Uzi Rebhun (PhD) is an Associate Professor and Head of the A. Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. He holds the Shlomo Argov Chair in Israel-Diaspora Relations. His areas of interest are Jewish migration, Jewish identification, the Jewish family, Israel-Diaspora relations, and population projections. CORRESPONDENCE: Division of Jewish Demography & Statistics, The A. Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, Israel.