What is the difference between pluralism and assimilation

Cultural pluralism is a term used when smaller groups within a larger society maintain their unique cultural identities, and their values and practices are accepted by the wider culture provided they are consistent with the laws and values of the wider society. A prominent example of pluralism is 20th Century United States, in which a dominant culture with strong elements of nationalism, a sporting culture , and an artistic culture contained also smaller groups with their own ethnic, religious, and cultural norms.

Pluralism is based on a value system that we all hold in common. Multiculturalism is based on the lowest common denominator of values in a society. Pluralism allows for many different groupings but, unlike multiculturalism , does not try to impose one uniform status on all of them.

Cultural pluralism is a term used when smaller groups within a larger society maintain their unique cultural identities, and their values and practices are accepted by the wider dominant culture provided they are consistent with the laws and values of the wider society. Pluralism is a term used in philosophy, meaning "doctrine of multiplicity", often used in opposition to monism "doctrine of unity" and dualism "doctrine of duality".

In logic, pluralism is the view that there is no one correct logic, or alternatively, that there is more than one correct logic. The common good Pluralism is connected with the hope that this process of conflict and dialogue will result in a quasi-common good. While advocated by many pluralists, pluralism need not embrace social democracy given it does not a priori assume a desirable political system.

Each aspect e. The extreme opposite of pluralism is totalitarianism, when one supreme dictator makes all the decisions and no one can contradict him. In the Catholic Church, pluralism is also the practice of holding more than one office at once. Pluralism and Diversity. Pluralism : a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain an autonomous participation in and development of their traditional culture or special interest, within the confines of a common civilisation.

One of the more famous arguments for institutional pluralism came from James Madison in The Federalist paper number Pluralism in a Sentence?? Pluralism is a system in which two or more states, groups, or principles coexist together. Expulsion refers to a subordinate group being forced, by a dominant group, to leave a certain area or country. As seen in the examples of the Trail of Tears and the Holocaust, expulsion can be a factor in genocide. However, it can also stand on its own as a destructive group interaction.

Expulsion has often occurred historically with an ethnic or racial basis. The Order authorized the establishment of internment camps for anyone with as little as one-eighth Japanese ancestry i. Over , legal Japanese residents and Japanese U. In fact, many Japanese Americans continued to demonstrate their loyalty to the United States by serving in the U. In the s, the U. Segregation refers to the physical separation of two groups, particularly in residence, but also in workplace and social functions.

It is important to distinguish between de jure segregation segregation that is enforced by law and de facto segregation segregation that occurs without laws but because of other factors. A stark example of de jure segregation is the apartheid movement of South Africa, which existed from to Under apartheid, black South Africans were stripped of their civil rights and forcibly relocated to areas that segregated them physically from their white compatriots. Only after decades of degradation, violent uprisings, and international advocacy was apartheid finally abolished.

De jure segregation occurred in the United States for many years after the Civil War. During this time, many former Confederate states passed Jim Crow laws that required segregated facilities for blacks and whites.

For the next five decades, blacks were subjected to legalized discrimination, forced to live, work, and go to school in separate—but unequal —facilities. De facto segregation, however, cannot be abolished by any court mandate. Segregation is still alive and well in the United States, with different racial or ethnic groups often segregated by neighborhood, borough, or parish.

Sociologists use segregation indices to measure racial segregation of different races in different areas. The indices employ a scale from zero to , where zero is the most integrated and is the least.

In the New York metropolitan area, for instance, the black-white segregation index was seventy-nine for the years — This means that 79 percent of either blacks or whites would have to move in order for each neighborhood to have the same racial balance as the whole metro region Population Studies Center True pluralism is characterized by mutual respect on the part of all cultures, both dominant and subordinate, creating a multicultural environment of acceptance.

In reality, true pluralism is a difficult goal to reach. Assimilation describes the process by which a minority individual or group gives up its own identity by taking on the characteristics of the dominant culture. In the United States, which has a history of welcoming and absorbing immigrants from different lands, assimilation has been a function of immigration. For many immigrants to the United States, the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of freedom and a new life.

Our knowledge and understanding of the process of assimilation, however, is much less reliable since the dimensions in this process have only recently emerged. I will first attempt to indicate some consequences of the traditional style of ethnic politics and then to suggest some of the implications in the continued pursuit of this style of political life.

Finally, consideration will be given to some of the present conditions as they enhance or detract from the style of political life as the ethnic population becomes increasingly assimilated, as I assume it to be today. It is not my intention to dwell in detail upon the enormous contribution of various ethnic groups to the American social, political, and economic systems other than to note that the history of this nation is inextricably tied to the history of ethnic groups, black and white, as they began as immigrants and inched their way upward into the higher social and economic strata of the society.

American ethnic history has been unique in at least one respect, namely, the ability or perhaps necessity of ethnic groups to placate and accommodate one another in their daily activities. Greeley may be correct when he suggests that future historians may view the peaceful co-existence of diverse ethnic groups in this century as an achievement on the order of magnitude of industrialization in the 19th century Greeley.

I think we do tend to gloss over this condition, a fact whose importance is highlighted in such internecine struggles as we have witnessed abroad between Indian and Pakistani, Irish Catholic and Ulster Protestant, Ibo and Hausa-Yoruba in Nigeria, and, closer to home, Canadians and the irredentist French-Canadians.

This is not to imply that our heritage has been free of political conflicts involving different ethnic minorities, but rather to suggest that the intensity of the conflicts have not, thus far, resulted in a pyrrhic victory for one ethnic faction or another.

The tensions have been mitigated, in part, by the achievements of different groups in the economic and political systems, with the resultant cross-cutting rather than reinforcing cleavages. Indicators of the extent of achievement are visible in the increased number of ethnic surnames among holders of corporate power, the reduced emphasis on ethnic politics, and, not least, the changing income, educational, and occupational status of an essentially working class originally peasant population.

The achievements have occurred unevenly to be sure, and frequently with social disruption. But one would need to abandon standards of evidence to conclude, as some do, that there has been no progress in the conditions of Blacks, Chicanos, and other minority groups. It is true that the upward mobility of some groups has been more pronounced than that for others, Japanese Americans being a case in point Petersen.

And some groups, the American Indian particularly, have hardly budged in terms of the dimensions of upward mobility. The conditions of Blacks—a long-neglected population—are also improving.

As Moynihan has observed, the Negro middle class is making marked improvements in their status and larger numbers of Blacks are moving into the middle class.

To cite specific examples of success among, say, Italians, Poles, Slovenes, or Slovaks seems unnecessary. What better evidence do we need for viewing the combined impact of motivation and opportunity on the ethnic group than the growing concern among ethnic group leaders, conspicuous in their age, for the loss of ethnic habits, consciousness, and identity among the young? Cultural pluralism in the United States is based on the idea of ethnic pluralism, the belief that pluralism is founded initially on ethnic differences.

I have deliberately avoided imputing a normative interpretation to that which is valuable in ethnicity and thus ought to be sustained, or to that which is less desirable and, thus, should be changed.

The concepts of cultural pluralism and ethnic assimilation have often been used for purposes of persuasion, as Nathan Glazer reminds us. As assimilation appeared to be occurring at glacial speed or to be something undesirable in itself propagandists often argued for the rewards of a society containing a rich mixture of distinct and identifiable ethnic groups. The national government has also reflected the different concerns in its ambivalent treatment of ethnics.

At one time the federal government promoted programs intended to eradicate that which made the ethnic group distinct, an extreme illustration may be seen in the activities of the Bureau of Indian Affairs as it treats American Indians. What makes for an ethnic group aside from the pejorative themes? Ethnicity refers to a collectivity of individuals who identify with a particular ethnic group, share the values, interests, and language of the group, find themselves in territorial concentration Lieberson, , and, in general, confine their interpersonal relations to group membership Gordon, , p.

One implication of the dimensions of self identification and commonality of value is the conviction that the group standards are indeed the superior ones, the norms constituting the standards by which all out-group individuals are to be judged—ethnocentrism.

The extent of shared values and value differences are of course related to differences in place of national origins and the experiential conditions derived from that common point of departure. Heterogeneity, then, is assumed to be a function of these initial starting points, time of immigration, and the nature of the conditions that stimulated geographic movement from one political jurisdiction to another.

The characteristic of heterogeneity in some measure also applies to American Blacks. Blacks have a longer history in America than the ethnics who arrived after Hence, the view here is that ethnic pluralism and ethnic assimilation are polar extremes of a continuum, one end representing a condition of considerable heterogeneity between groups and the other end reflecting the characteristics that we now associate with ethnic assimilation. Ethnics today, I think, are somewhere between these two extremes, but clearly becoming more assimilated.

Moreover, the societal forces that are so corrosive of ethnic bonds are supplemented by the natural process of attrition, the dying off of the immigrant population and now first and second generation Americans who in fact were the prime carriers and guardians of the traditions, values, and language of the mother country.

Subsequent generations of ethnic groups are today better educated than their forbears. They are more mobile, geographically and socially, and have radiated outward from their earlier areas of residential concentration.

They have all but relinquished their language commonality which had earlier contributed so much to making them distinct. And they have conformed to the role requirements imposed by modern organizations, often at the expense of earlier shared values and interests. In addition to the obvious advantages and perquisites coming to those with more and better education, ethnics have become more pragmatic and tolerant in adapting and accommodating to out-group persons.

The latter is clearly evidenced in the general decline of segregationist attitudes in the United States over the last 25 years. Greeley and Sheatsley, In brief, younger people differ significantly from their elders on the critical dimensions of ethnicity. There is overlap, to be sure, and there are probably few groups that have been fully assimilated into the host society; but like the middle class Negro, the ethnics are also on the move.

The student of ethnic politics asks ultimately whether these differences between, say, first and third generations reflect significant differences in their political attitudes and behavior. The political concerns and interests of cultural pluralism are apparent. The nature of current ethnic concerns is also discernible, but certainly not so obvious as are the past practices of the ethnics.

As we have said, different ethnic groups arrived at different times and often for different reasons. There has been a general improvement in the socio-economic conditions of large numbers of Americans of many different ethnic groups and it provides greater likelihood of class-related differences.

Given this uplifting, and it is not merely a reflection of a total upgrading of the societal structures as Parenti suggests, the unit of analysis ought to be something that includes both ethnicity and class standing.

The cell occupied by Al is the resultant of the class and ethnicity variables. Assimilation suggests a greater similarity between Al and Bl, for example; while the idea of cultural pluralism suggests greater similarity between Al, A2, A3 and so on, and greater differences between any A cell compared to any B cell entry. It is beyond the scope of this paper to examine differences in eth-classes.

We do assume, however, that larger numbers of ethnics are moving upward on the class variable, that is, reflecting social mobility. Available research confirms its importance in such distant states as Connecticut, New York, New Mexico, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and a host of local settings.

The political impact of the ethnic, however, is greatest at the local level. The ethnic immigrant gravitated to the urban centers of America and most of his political activity and concerns were directed to local politics.

At one time, remember, aliens were allowed to vote in 22 states and territories; though by , Arkansas joined the nation by making citizenship a requirement for the ballot. There are, of course, notable exceptions to this generalization about the municipal orientation of the ethnic.

Notwithstanding these illustrations, the ethnic was a local force transcending the pulls of state and national issues and affairs.

It should not be thought that ethnic groups were totally misdirected in their efforts. Ethnic politicians were recognized and gained access to the perquisites of public office.

Thus the ethnic traded off the substantive power of his vote for the symbolic satisfactions which were not substantive in any material sense. Cultural pluralism, when dominated by a concern for recognition, was symbolic It was symbolic in the sense that the large majority of the ethnic group derived a sense of satisfaction from the fact that they had been recognized, and that their own would surely look after their political interests and concerns.

Indeed, the style prevailing in the past politics of cultural pluralism was symbolic. Politics for the ethnic, as for his counterpart in the working class, was clearly of secondary importance. His primary orientation was, and probably continues to be, economic.

His acquiescence was usually achieved through official pronouncements of reassurance and governmental concern Edelman, Rarely did this restricted view of politics result in substantive gains to the ethnics. The achieved psychological satisfactions, it should be noted, have come at an enormous cost to ethnics, both Black and white. Too long the ethnic has been content with the assumption that his interests and values would be safeguarded by the ethnic politician. And too often the ethnic politician has sacrificed the real interest of the ethnic.

In point of fact, the situation was frequently just the opposite. The ethnic leader often had economic interests quite at odds with those of the rank and file ethnic; or, as also happened, he had been coopted by opposition interests. The pluralist politics of the ethnic, then, when obsessed with the rewards of recognition, resulted in the exploitation of the ethnic. As reported by one journalist,. Daley devised a typical solution. Joanne Alter, the nomination for sanitary district trustee.