Читать книгу Segregation - Eric Fong - Страница 16

Allport (1954) believed in the redemptive power of social contact for ameliorating racial prejudice. His contact hypothesis argued that reducing inter-group prejudice required active efforts to ensure a society that brought groups together in neutral territory, with relatively equal power, and encouraged cooperative personal relations. During this period, scholars theorized the forms of integration necessary to bridge the social and physical divide between ethno-racial groups (Anderson 2013). Advocates seeking to end segregation argued that ethno-racial harmony required society to foster normative, functional, and communicative integration.

Normative integration is the extent to which different groups share the same beliefs, values, and norms (Durkheim 2002 [1897]; Parsons 1951). It may be based on a distinct local culture (e.g. the Southern “culture of honor”) or similar exposure to mass socialization (e.g. national media, religious or school systems) that instill common mores (e.g. “family values”). While some beliefs, values, and norms may be shared between groups, others may be held by specific groups at the low end of the group hierarchy in the society, through a process of “normative inversion” that reverses the rank order by these groups considering themselves “superior” to the dominant group (Wimmer 2008). A society today moving toward greater normative integration between status groups can benefit from these shared understandings and values.

Functional integration is the degree to which status groups experience direct and indirect interdependence (Durkheim 2002 [1897]; Parsons 1951). It may be based on obvious and direct relationships that demand interdependence (e.g. house slaves and their masters; a local bakery and residents of the neighborhood), or long chains of interrelationships in which all parties in the chain are interdependent (e.g. the chain of interdependence linking commuters on a congested US freeway, oil companies, oilfield workers in the Middle East, American foreign policy, etc.). Functional integration typically involves exchanges of economic resources that are difficult to obtain, but these exchanges are also based on principles such as equality, reciprocity, or market value.

Communicative integration shifts the focus from outcomes to the process of striving for mutual understanding through rational-critical discussion or debate. For example, a forum where neighbors from different racial/ethnic groups learn from each other through discussions and coming to appreciate each other’s culture is communicative integration. This is what Habermas (1984) considers the process of achieving common understanding between individuals in the “lifeworld,” which is at the heart of social integration. In theory, communicative integration comes about in settings that meet criteria like those proposed by Allport (1954) for reducing inter-group prejudice. As Habermas (1984) explains, this process is a prerequisite for genuine moral consensus or normative integration. The challenge is bringing to the table social actors of different status groups with equal capacities and voices, so that there can be “ideal speech situations.” Interacting in informal settings, such as chatting with neighbors, or talking casually with colleagues during lunch, is more likely to bring about communicative integration. Breaking down the boundaries of segregation by working toward these forms of integration is essential for healthy multi-ethnic societies.

There is a clear contrast between this recent work and scholars from the earlier twentieth century. These earlier scholars were focused on describing segregation as a natural consequence of human ecology rather than as a social problem to be ameliorated by active efforts. There was not the same rights-based moral framing in the claims about segregation. Earlier scholars did not focus on the power and status differences between groups, and the long-term disadvantage that was created by these processes. For example, Park saw segregation as a natural process when he noted: “One of the incidents of the growth of the community is the social selection and segregation of the population, and the creation, on the one hand, of natural social groups, and on the other, of natural social areas” (1926: 8). Furthermore, prejudice was seen as a “more or less instinctive and spontaneous disposition to maintain social distances” from other groups (Park 1924: 343) rather than a changeable viewpoint that could be addressed through inter-group contact (Allport 1954). Without much regard to issues of rights, justice, stratification, and changeability of prejudice, scholars from this early period focused on how residential segregation is made possible through the perpetual “sorting and shifting of the different elements of population differentiation” (Burgess 1928: 105).

As our understanding of the concept deepens, we must recognize that segregation is not inevitable. Segregation can be minimized with thoughtful public policy, education, and sincere efforts to forge common ground among different groups. Because segregation has significant negative consequences for society, it is important to thoroughly understand its causes, magnitude, and consequences so as to achieve a more just society.