Segregation. Eric Fong
segregation by income level in various cities in the world. Different explanations are suggested to account for income residential segregation in different cities with diverse political structures. Beginning in the 1980s, a growing set of literature started exploring the spatial concentration of poverty in the United States, especially among racial minorities. Most scholars agreed that the cause of poverty concentration was involuntary, and two possible reasons emerged to explain the poverty concentration of African Americans. Wilson (1987) argued that the selective departure of middle-class African Americans from poor black neighborhoods had contributed to the geographic concentration of poverty among African Americans. Massey and his colleagues (Massey and Denton 1993; Massey, Gross, and Shibuya 1994) argued that the concentration was simply a result of an increasing number of poor people living in certain areas due to the residential segregation of African Americans in racially segmented housing markets. An extensive body of research suggests that racial/ethnic residential segregation creates adversity for individuals growing up and living in disadvantaged neighborhoods. The negative effects on the well-being of these residents, and reverberating effects on the entire city, are substantial.
While continuing along the topic of physical segregation, Chapter 6 shifts the focus to the dynamics of the geographic concentration of ethnic groups. We discuss why and how ethnic groups are concentrated in certain locations and form ethnic communities. We focus on social, economic, and cultural explanations, and review research findings on ethnic communities in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and European countries. Groups cluster for both voluntary and involuntary reasons. We outline the consequences of participating in ethnic community, including gaining social support, improving self-esteem, and assisting economic achievement. However, we also show how participating in ethnic community can sometimes lead to negative consequences.
Chapter 7 turns to focus on the segregation of immigrants. Three theories help to explain the barriers and pathways to integration of immigrants into a new society: the classical assimilation perspective, the selective immigration perspective, and the segmented assimilation perspective. Based mainly on research from major cities in Canada, Europe, and the United States, we see that immigrant groups vary in whether and how they integrate into mainstream society. Two of the main impediments to greater social integration of immigrants are a lack of inter-group contact and occupational segregation, both of which are exacerbated by blocked career pathways, linguistic barriers, the ethnic economy, and residential segregation. The social exclusion and inequality due to segregation have detrimental effects on the integration of immigrants.
In the concluding chapter, we summarize and discuss the key lessons in the study of segregation in contemporary societies. Our discussion suggests that spatial and social segregation perpetuate and reinforce unequal resource distribution across racial and ethnic groups. However, unlike Galster and Sharkey (2017), we argue that segregation can have both positive and negative consequences for individuals and groups. A similar economic standing and own-group preference often attract people with similar racial/ethnic backgrounds; whereas discrimination pushes socially and economically different groups apart, which is usually associated with negative outcomes. Although segregation may occur in only one aspect of our lives, the sustained patterns of physical and social distance it creates with others have ripple effects on everyone’s economic, social, and psychological well-being. Thus, understanding and addressing segregation is critically important for both alleviating social stratification and fostering harmony in multicultural societies.
Notes
1 1 Technically speaking, hypersegregation refers to a pattern of extreme segregation observed simultaneously along at least four of the major five dimensions of segregation (Massey and Denton 1989).
The primary purpose of this chapter is to introduce the concept of segregation, discuss classical and contemporary perspectives on it, and review the major theories scholars use to understand its causes and consequences. Segregation refers to the differential distribution and interaction of social groups in a social structure (Massey 2001). Differential distribution can occur across different geographic scales, such as neighborhoods, schools, and communities. Differential interaction of social groups can be observed in different forms of social interaction, including everyday interactions such as choosing a daycare center where parents tend to come from a similar background; peer group and friendship choices in school; and choosing partners for marriage. The spatial mismatch between groups in residential environments and other settings contributes to a lack of social contact. The segregation of different ethno-racial, linguistic, and immigration groups has received significant attention from scholars because of its relevance to social stratification and the life chances of individuals.
Since the beginning of the last century, segregation has been part of the study of the urban form and social relations of individuals and groups in the city. Early insights into segregation came from the human ecological perspective. As Engel-Frisch articulated, human ecology asks the question, “How do aggregates of individuals adapt to a common environment?” (1943: 43). From the perspective of human ecology, our living environment has limited resources, and groups often compete, and sometimes cooperate, for their share of them. These limited resources include desirable locations for housing, business, and recreation, as well as access to safe and defensible spaces to nurture community, worship freely, and grow families.
The human ecology perspective hypothesizes that natural processes such as competition, invasion-succession (i.e. a number of households from one group move in and occupy and dominate a neighborhood which was previously occupied by another group), cooperation (i.e. groups support each other), and other adaptations shape the distribution of resources between groups. One of the main outcomes of these processes is to “sort” groups by socioeconomic and demographic factors into distinct neighborhoods and social environments. Over time, the ethno-racial composition of neighborhoods may “shift” due to these processes. This sorting and shifting of people into different neighborhoods is based on the assumption that some groups have more resources and are more capable of converting their resources into better neighborhood qualities. For example, the political and economic clout, as well as size, of some groups aids their efforts to retain control over the most desirable resources, leaving groups with fewer resources to occupy less desirable areas. The organization of the city that results from these processes creates patterns of interaction and segregation. Residential patterns characterized by physical and social distance between groups are often the outcomes of this social organization of the city.
Causes of Segregation
Why does segregation exist? Perhaps the simplest and most common explanation is homophily. Like the adage “birds of a feather stick together,” the principle of homophily suggests that people prefer to be with people like themselves. This desire may come from deep-rooted feelings that safety, compatibility, reciprocity, attraction, and shared culture are more likely to be found in people who share a common background. Although scholars who study segregation most often focus on ethno-racial segregation, homophily may draw people together due to a variety of common characteristics (e.g. race/ethnicity, language, religion, age, income, family type). Proponents of homophily argue that it is natural to prefer to live in a community with neighbors who have a similar economic, social, and demographic background. These preferences determine those with whom residents share neighborhoods and other social environments (Dietz and Rosa 1994).
Another result of homophily is that voluntary choices made to create and maintain an “in-group” often also include exclusionary behaviors involuntarily imposed on an “out-group.” Thus, segregation is a product of both voluntary and involuntary factors. For example,