patterson - a critique of the new ethnicity

8/9/2019 Patterson - A Critique of the New Ethnicity

1/4

A Critique of "The New Ethnicity"Author(s): G. James PattersonSource: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 81, No. 1 (Mar., 1979), pp. 103-105Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/677220 .

Accessed: 18/01/2015 19:34

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].

.

Wiley and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 148.223.96.146 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 19:34:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/stable/677220?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/677220?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/4

REPORTS

AND COMMENTS

103

not

simple

at our

present

level of

knowledge.

More observations are

needed

on

nonhuman

primates

and other

animals,

as well as on

humans from

many

different cultures. This

paper

seeks

to

bring

to

general

awareness the

existence of an important but neglected cate-

gory

of behavior: behavior that seems to be sex-

ual but serves no

reproductive

function.

Up

to

now,

such behavior has been

ignored

or rele-

gated

to

insignificance

by

scientists

and

lay-

persons

alike,

but in the near future we

may

be

faced

with the

problem

of

redefining

the mean-

ing

of the word 'sexual.'

Only

when this situa-

tion

has been clarified can we

hope

for a better

understanding

of

many aspects

of animal and

human behavior.

References

Cited

Altmann,

S.

A.

1959 Field

Observations

on

a

Howling

Monkey

Society. Journal

of

Mammalogy

40:317-330.

Bernstein,

I. S.

1967

A

Field

Study

of

the

Pigtail

Monkey

(Macaca

nemestrina).

Primates 8:217-228.

Blurton-Jones,

N.

G.,

and

J.

Trollope

1968 Social Behavior of Stump-Tailed

Macaques

in

Captivity.

Primates

9:365-

394.

Bourne,

G. H.

1974

Primate

Odyssey.

New

York: G. P.

Putnam's

Sons.

Caldwell,

M.

C.,

and

D.

K.

Caldwell

1966

Epimeletic

(Care-Giving)

Behavior

in

Cetacea.

In

Whales,

Dolphins,

and

Porpoises.

K.

S.

Norris,

ed.

Pp.

755-789.

Berkeley:

University

of California

Press.

Campbell,

B. G.

1966 Human Evolution. Chicago: Aldine.

Churchill,

W.

1967 Homosexual

Behavior

Among

Males.

Englewood

Cliffs,

N.

J.:

Prentice-Hall.

Ford,

C.

S.,

and

F. A. Beach

1951 Patterns

of Sexual

Behavior.

New

York:

Harper

and Bros.

Itani,

J.

1959

Paternal Care

in the

Wild

Japanese

Monkey,

Macaca fuscata

fuscata.

Primates

2:61-93.

Jahn, T. L., and F. F. Jahn

1949 How to

Know

the Protozoa.

Dubuque,

Iowa: Wm.

C.

Brown.

Jolly,

A.

1972

The Evolution

of

Primate

Behavior.

New

York:

Macmillan.

Kinsey,

A.

C.,

et

al.

1953 Sexual Behavior in the Human Fe-

male.

Philadelphia:

W. B. Saunders.

Lemmon,

W.

B.

1978 Folia

Primatologica.

In

press.

Malinowski,B.

1929 The Sexual Life of

Savages

in

North-

western Melanesia. New York:

Halcyon

House.

Masters,

W.

H.,

and V. E.

Johnson

1966 Human Sexual

Response.

Boston:

Little,

Brown.

Morris,

D.,

ed.

1969 Primate

Ethology: Essays

on

the

Socio-

sexual Behavior of

Apes

and

Monkeys.

Chicago:

Aldine.

Nishida, T.

1970 Social

Behavior

and

Relationships

Among

Wild

Chimpanzees

of the Mahali

Mountains.

Primates 11:47-87.

Rijksen,

H. D.

1978

A

Field

Study

on Sumatran

Orangu-

tans

(Pongo pygmaeus

abelii

Lesson

1827).

Wageningen,

Netherlands:

Mededelingen

Landbouwhogeschool.

Tikuda, K.,

R. C.

Simons,

and G. D.

Jensen

1968

Sexual

Behavior

in a

Captive

Group

of

Pigtailed

Monkeys

(Macaca

nemestrina).

Primates 9:283-294.

Tripp,

C. A.

1975

The

Homosexual

Matrix. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Submitted 17

August

1977

Revised

version submitted 25

April

1978

Accepted

12

May

1978

Final

revisions

received

22June

1978

A

Critique

of

The New

Ethnicity

G.

JAMES

PATTERSON

Eastern

Oregon

State

College

In

the

fast-changing

world of North

Ameri-

can

social

science,

one fashion

that has

caught

on

rapidly

and sustained considerable

popu-

larity

in

the last few

years

is an interest

in

American ethnic groups. Academics, their

students,

and some elements of the

general pub-

lic

now

speak

of

ethnicity,

the

viability

of

Italian-American Catholic

culture,

Greek-

American

political

influence on the

Cyprus

issue, roots,

Polish

Power,

or

.

.

.

our

This content downloaded from 148.223.96.146 on Sun, 18 Jan 2015 19:34:01 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/4

104

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[81, 1979]

shift from the

Melting

Pot

concept

of America

to that of

Cultural

Pluralism .

.

(Hsu

1977:

808).

While

most of

the

scholarly

research on

the

topic

has been sincere and

responsible,

there

has

developed,

in the

past

decade and a

half,

what Basham and DeGroot call the academic

ethnicity industry

(1977:423).

As a member of

that

industry,

I

think it is time

to

take a

new

look at what we have

wrought.

What we

have

produced,

I

am

afraid,

is a

plethora

of studies on American ethnic

groups,

many

of

them

suggesting

a

continuing ethnicity

among

the

groups

in

question although

con-

siderable

emerging

data indicate the

contrary.

I

do not fault

historians who have dealt with the

subject; they

have

largely

been

describing

what

was, not what is. The assimilation of certain

groups

is discussed in two recent

publications:

Barton's Peasants and

Strangers:

Italians,

Ru-

manians,

and Slovaks in an American

City,

1890-1950

(1975);

and a

book of

readings

edited

by

Papanikolas,

entitled

The

Peoples of

Utah

(1976).

Among

the

social

scientists,

Glazer

and

Moynihan

can be

faulted,

although

their

pioneer

work

Beyond

the

Melting

Pot

(1963)

presented

a

position

that needed to be made at

the

time to counter the uncritical

assimilation-

ists. Their

subsequent

volume

Ethnicity: Theory

and

Experience (1975),

while

continuing

the

thesis that

ethnic

groups

are still with

us,

offers

a

generally

balanced

view of the

issue;

the

sym-

bolic nature

of

ethnicity

is

acknowledged,

and

data on assimilation are not

ignored.

In

contrast,

Michael

Novak's

The Rise

of

the

Unmeltable Ethnics

(1971),

while evocative of

the

nature

of

old ethnic

neighborhoods

and

sen-

sitive to white

ethnic

grievances,

degenerates

in-

to

a

polemic against

WASPs and

academics

who have

ignored

those

white ethnic

groups.

Sanders and Morawska's Polish-American Com-

munity

Life:

A

Survey of

Research

(1975)

ig-

nores the

high

percentage

of

exogamy

and loss

of ethnic

identity

among

Polish-Americans

(see

Polzin

1973:236-244).

And Mindel and

Haben-

stein's new book

of

readings,

Ethnic

Families in

America

(1976),

although

containing

many

good

articles that

acknowledge

the loss of

ethni-

city

among

the

group

in

question,

presents

an

opposite

conclusion

by

the editors.

Most

recent studies of

ethnic

groups

in

the

United States that

present

data

on such

critical

indices of assimilation as loss of

language

and

exogamy

indicate

clearly

that

assimilation is

taking place

and

ethnicity

is

being

lost

(see,

for

example,

Barton

1975;

Conner

1977;

Klober-

danz

1975;

Nagata

1969;

Papanikolas

1976;

Patterson

1970, 1977;

Polzin

1973;

Vlachos

1968).

Further,

as Basham and

DeGroot

(1977:423)

point

out,

while ethnic

identity

con-

tinues to

be

important

to a

large

number of

peo-

ple

in

America,

many

scholars

seem .

.. to

rush the slightest symbolsof ethnic distinctive-

ness

into

print

to

prove

that

we

have not

really

blended

into a common

pot.

In

addition,

they

suggest

that

anthropologists,

with our knowl-

edge

of

pluralistic

societies,

would not view at-

tendance at ethnic

picnics

and other

symbolic

ethnic-based

activities

as

suggesting

true

plural-

ism,

since

a

majority

of

those involved have lost

the

language

and other

important

cultural

markers.

Why,

then,

has this movement devel-

oped,

and

why

does it

persist?

First, a number of anthropologistshave been

diverted to

ethnic

communities in

America

by

the decrease

in

opportunities

to

study

the home-

land cultures.

Many

of

us,

after

doing

fieldwork

abroad,

have

found North American

commu-

nities of

immigrants

from the

places

where we

have worked

overseas, and,

in

doing

research

among

these

groups

in the New

World,

have

been

captivated

by

and interested most in the

least assimilated

among

them because

they

have

reminded us most of the homeland

culture. And

among

the more

assimilated

of

our

groups,

we

have often asked

questions

and looked

for con-

clusions

that would

show continuation of ethni-

city,

for we

generally

believe that

to be a

good

thing.

Second,

many

social scientists

studying

ethnic

groups

in

America,

especially

those who are not

anthropologists,

have not worked

in

the home-

land.

Lacking

first-hand

knowledge

of

the cul-

ture,

they

tend to see

relatively

minor

deviations

from the American

norm

in

the ethnic

group

as

major

cultural

differences,

whereas

they

are

in

fact peripheral remnants of immigrant ethni-

city,

not vital

forms,

as Glazer and

Moynihan

suggest

(see

1975:4-5).

Parsons

(1975:65)

is

more

on the mark when he

quotes

Schneider as

saying

that ethnic

identity

in

America

is

...

conspicuously

devoid

of

'social content'

and that the

cultural markers are

empty

sym-

bols.

Third,

the

national mood

in

the last few

years,

in

both the United States

and

Canada,

has been

receptive

of

attempts

to reestablish

neighborhood communities,

to

discover and

return to

one's

roots,

to

celebrate the

cultural

mosaic rather than the

more

homogeneous

na-

tional culture. The

significant gains

and

in-

creased

visibility

of

some racial

and ethnic

minorities have

given

impetus

to a

development





4/4

REPORTS AND

COMMENTS

105

of white

pride

and a

resurgence

of ethnic feel-

ing.

In

response,

national,

state,

and

provincial

governments

in North America have been fund-

ing

ethnic-heritage projects,

folk-culture re-

search

activities,

and ethnic-studies

centers.

Academics with knowledge of appropriate

cultures

have

benefited,

and some have

per-

petuated

the

myths

of ethnic

vitality despite

decreasing

data

supporting

these

myths.

To

be

sure,

there are

pockets

of real ethni-

city, especially

in Canada.

Further,

most schol-

ars

dealing

with

ethnicity

have done so

respon-

sibly, analyzing

it for what it is or was. In addi-

tion,

there are some excellent

challenges

to

apologists

for

the

movement,

such as the one

mentioned

previously

by

Basham and DeGroot

(1977), a paper by Walker Conner (1977), and a

book

by

Stein and

Hill

(1977).

Despite

those ef-

forts,

however,

we

continue

to

get

too

many

un-

sophisticated,

biased,

irresponsible

works

pur-

porting

to show

ethnic

individuality

whereas the

facts

suggest

otherwise.

References

Cited

Barton,

Josef

J.

1975 Peasants and Strangers: Italians,

Rumanians and

Slovaks

in

an American

City,

1890-1950.

Cambridge,

Mass.: Har-

vard

University

Press.

Basham, Richard,

and

David DeGroot

1977

Current

Approaches

to the

Anthro-

pology

of Urban

and

Complex

Societies.

American

Anthropologist

79:414-440.

Conner,

Walker

1977 Recent

Developments

in Ethnic Pat-

terns and

Relationships

Within the U.S.A.

Unpublished ms., St. Antony's College,

University

of Oxford.

Glazer,

Nathan,

and

Daniel P.

Moynihan

1963

Beyond

the

Melting

Pot:

The

Negroes,

Puerto

Ricans,

Jews,

Italians,

and

Irish

of New York

City,

Cambridge,

Mass.:

MIT Press.

Glazer, Nathan,

and Daniel

P.

Moynihan,

eds.

1975

Ethnicity: Theory

and

Experience.

Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard

University

Press.

Hsu, Francis L. K.

1977

Role,

Affect,

and

Anthropology.

American

Anthropologist

79:805-808.

Kloberdanz,

Timothy J.

1975

The

Volga

Germans

in Old

Russia

and in

Western North America:

Their

Changing

World View.

Anthropological

Quarterly

48:209-222.

Mindel,

Charles

H.,

and Robert W. Haben-

stein,

eds.

1976 Ethnic Families in America: Patterns

and Variations. New York: Elsevier.

Nagata, Judith

1969

Adaptation

and

Integration

of Greek

Working

Class

Immigrants

in

the

City

of

Toronto,

Canada:

A

Situational

Approach.

International

Migration

Review

4:44-70.

Novak,

Michael

1971

The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics.

New York: Macmillan.

Papanikolas, Helen Z., ed.

1976 The

Peoples

of Utah. Salt Lake

City:

Utah State Historical

Society.

Parsons,

Talcott

1975

Some Theoretical Considerations on

the Nature

and Trends of

Change

of

Ethnicity.

In

Ethnicity: Theory

and

Ex-

perience.

Nathan Glazer and Daniel P.

Moynihan,

eds.

Pp.

53-83.

Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard

University

Press.

Patterson,

G.

James

1970 The Unassimilated Greeks of Denver.

Anthropological

Quarterly

43:243-253.

1977 The

Romanians of

Saskatchewan:

Four

Generations

of

Adaptation.

Ottawa:

National

Museum of Man.

Polzin,

Theresita

1973 The

Polish

Americans: Whence and

Whither.

Pulaski,

Wis.: Franciscan Pub-

lishers.

Sanders,

Irwin

T.,

and Ewa T. Morawska

1975

Polish-American

Community

Life:

A Survey of Research. New York: Polish

Institute

of Arts and

Sciences

in

America.

Stein,

Howard

F.,

and Robert

F. Hill

1977

The Ethnic

Imperative:

Examining

the New White

Ethnic Movement. Uni-

versity

Park:

Pennsylvania

State

Univer-

sity

Press.

Vlachos,

Evan

1968 The Assimilation of Greeks in

the

United

States,

with

Special

Reference to

the

Greek

Community

of

Anderson,

In-

diana. Athens: National Centre of Social

Researches.

Submitted 21

February

1978

Accepted 23June

1978

Final

revisions

received

29June

1978



patterson - a critique of the new ethnicity

Documents