Research Interests

 Theory of Ethnicity and Christianity:Assimilational and Plural Models for Explaining the Role of Religion in the Adaptation of Immigrants

1. Model based on a Linear or Segmented Assimilation Process

Assimilation arguments have usually focused on Gordon's seven dimensions of assimilation: cultural, structural, marital, identificational, attitude receptional, behavior receptional, and civic assimilational (1964:71). Two points have been emphasized. First, the assimilation process is linear. Once cultural or structural assimilation has occurred, all other types of assimilation will naturally follow (Gordon 1964:81). Second, ethnicity seems to disappear as the assimilation process silently turns immigrants and their children into Americans. In this model, the role of religion has been viewed as an adapter of organizations rather than as an agent of cultural preservation (Niebuhr 1957, Steinberg 1981, Fishman 1972). Assimilation and 'melting pot' observers, in one way or another, claim that the assimilation process invariably transforms the role of ethnic religion over the course of several generations (Park 1950, Herberg 1960, Gordon 1964, Mullins 1987). Specifically, they highlight the decline of ethnic religious institutions and ethnic identity in the second generation and their subsequent resurgence in the third generation.

A sizable body of studies on Japanese-Americans applied this linear assimilation model directly. Feagin and Fujitak (1972), and Montero and Tsukashima (1977) have provided evidence of substantial assimilation in terms of language (core-cultural level) and job placement (secondary-structural level), but they have argued that assimilation at such levels as the primary-group and marriage is only modestly advancing. A study conducted by Frank Miyamoto in Seattle in 1936 found significant differences between Buddhist and Christian Japanese-Americans with respect to assimilation (Cited in Kitano 1969, 85). Japanese-Americans adhering to the traditional Buddhist religion were more likely to retain traditional Japanese values and ways and were "more Japanese-American" than Japanese Christians. In contrast, Kitano (1969, 87) argued that Buddhist churches have changed to the point that they are remarkably similar to Christian churches, and like them, remarkably American. In addition, although the data were not originally collected to study the changing link between religion and ethnicity, Hammond and Warner (1993) showed that the strength of the connection between them in the United States has declined over the course of several generations.

At the same time, many observers have questioned the assumptions that the host society unilaterally dictates the terms of assimilation, that the change is a linear progression from foreignness to Americanization, and that individuals experience the assimilation process passively and unconsciously. Gans (1992a) replaced this linear line theory with a non-linear bumpy line theory representing various kinds of adaptations to changing circumstances.

At the expense of giving up the assimilation model, some sociologists began to focus on illuminating how melting pot concepts such as acculturation, assimilation, and accommodation work out by revealing characteristics of ethnicity. Some studies on European immigrants suggest that ethnic identities of third and later generation Europeans are free from affiliation with ethnic groups, and ethnic cultures, and instead are dominated by the preservation of symbols such as ethnic restaurants and festivals. Gans (1979, 1992a, 1994) conceptualized this weakening of ethnicity as "symbolic ethnicity." Others characterized it as "situational" (Okamura 1981) or "optional" (Waters 1992). Many studies of European Americans (Alba 1981, 1985, 1990, Hirschman 1983, Waters 1990) support Gans' thesis. Ethnic identity of Italian Catholics has weakened, but they still retain their religious identity. Gans (1994) argues that both religious and ethnic components of Jewish identity are essentially unrelated to one's behavior and affiliations. In contrast, Kivisto and Nefzger (1993, 8-9) conclude that Jews are "not retreating into a symbolic ethnicity", because "Jews are a religio-ethnic group" among whom religion provides a vehicle for sustaining a distinctive identity. Winter (1996:137) finds that "Jewish religious observances, affiliations and attitudes decline with increasing generations in the United States", as Gans predicts, yet he concludes that "overall, Jews in the United States have not retreated into symbolic ethnicity, and religion provides a vehicle for a distinctive Jewish identity." Such wide-ranging studies essentially suggest a declining role for ethnicity in American society, but not necessarily the decline of religious identity.

2. Model based on Ethnic Pluralism

Cultural pluralists argue that predictions about the end of ethnicity are premature. Characteristics of ethnicity such as ethnic group identity, ethnic cultural heritage, and ethnic institutions remain a strong and vital component of the American social fabric (Greeley 1971, Novak 1972: Laumann 1973; Newman 1973; Abramson 1973, 1976). They propose a view of American society in the last two decades as a mosaic of distinct ethnic blocs .

The recent invention theory of ethnicity goes further to emphasize that ethnicization itself is Americanization ( Sollors 1989, Conzen 1992). In their view, ethnicity is not a "collective fiction," but rather "a process of construction or invention which incorporates, adapts, and amplifies preexisting communal solidarities, cultural attributes, and historical memories." (Conzen 1992, 5). Therefore this theory highlights an active participation by the immigrants in defining their group identities and solidarities (ethnicization). Yet critics argue that this theory underestimates acculturation and overestimates fluidity and invention (Fuchs 1992).

Pluralist viewpoints on the link between religion and ethnicity usually emphasize the conservative role of religion in maintaining ethnic customs, language, and other cultural tradition originally stemming from the old country (Mol 1976, Olson 1979). They go further to claim that "the relationship between ethnicity and religion in the United States is as powerful today as it has been throughout American history" (Olson 1979, 436). Bankston III and Zhou (1995 ) find that there is a strong relationship today between religious participation of the Vietnamese Catholic adolescent and ethnic identification.

3. Four Patterns of the Relationship between Ethnicity and Assimilation

Discussions about ethnicity and assimilation have been deeply divided between the assimilationist and pluralist polemics. Both polemics have been criticized as inadequate (Yinger 1986, 39; Morawaska 1990, 218), yet some observers still develop their arguments in favor of one of these two paradigms (Glazer 1993, Barkan 1995). Other observers try to incorporate both approaches into an overarching theoretical model (Kivisto 1993, 99). To clarify this process, I suggest four patterns in the link between ethnicity and assimilation.

Pattern II and Pattern III: Assimilationists and pluralists regard ethnicity and assimilation as two mutually exclusive processes - a zero-sum model. As a result, if immigrants keep their ethnic identity and cultural heritage, naturally they are considered to be less assimilated. Conversely, it is taken for granted that immigrants who are substantially assimilated have already lost much of their ethnicity. In the above diagram, patterns II and III represent those exclusive models. Pattern II points to the straight assimilation model and the symbolic ethnicity thesis. Pattern III basically indicates the plural ethnicity model. In pattern II, religion is instrumental to the reinforcing of assimilation and at the same time to the disentangling of the ethnicity of immigrants. In this pattern, non-ethnic components of the Evangelicalism are highlighted. The conversion of Hispanic Catholics to American Protestantism seems to exemplify this pattern (Christiano 1993, Deck 1994, Roof and Manning 1994). This pattern may also refer to second generation Korean-American Evangelicals who attend American churches rather than Korean churches. In pattern III, the role of religion toward assimilation and ethnicity is reversed. Religion contributes to the maintenance and transmission of ethnicity while discouraging the assimilation of immigrants. This pattern might fit those second generation Korean-American Evangelicals who attend Korean ethnic churches while pursuing Korean ethnicity within Evangelicalism.

Pattern IV: this relationship between ethnicity and assimilation is exemplified in those immigrants who reject both assimilation and ethnicity. This kind of dual rejection can be described as “marginalization." This pattern fits those immigrants in highly sectarian religio-ethnic groups, such as the Amish, Hutterites, and Mormons. In this pattern, the religious tradition is so encompassing that ethnic identity remains simply a part of the whole religious cosmos. If religious identity is denied, so is ethnic identity. One's religion rather than one's ethnicity plays the primary role in defining identity. Second generation Korean-American Evangelicals who have strong separatist religious beliefs may belong to this pattern. Yet this marginal pattern may be found more in second generation Korean-American non-church goers than from second generation Korean-American Evangelicals.

Pattern I: this pattern captures the assimilation of immigrants who still retain their strong ethnicity. Several studies find cases where those in the first generation, as well as those in the second and third generations, firmly retain their ethnicity while becoming substantially assimilated (Woodrum 1981, Kim and Hurh 1992, Bankston III and Zhou 1995, 1996). Even some empirical studies which attempted to prove the hypothesis of the straight assimilation model found that a significant proportion of respondents retained their ethnicity while also acquiring American cultural traits (Feagin and Fujitak 1972, Montero and Tsukashima 1977). Hurh and Kim( 1984, 1984a ) called this kind of assimilation “adhesive adaptation? These studies, though, stop short of analyzing what the results imply and integrating the findings into ethnicity and assimilation theories.

Some observers have proposed a two-dimensional approach which takes into account both acculturation and retention of ethnicity (Mertzer 1971, Berry 1986 1987). In my view, invention theorists of ethnicity imply the importance of this model, because they argue that "adherence to elements of a non-American culture should not preclude one's being regarded as an American if one also adheres to essential American values"(Winter 1996, 148). Cross-cultural psychologists (Berry 1986, 1987) found that this type of acculturation is prevalent among immigrants. They define this as an “integration?attitude. In their view, this attitude accompanies a rejection of assimilation. What remains to be seen is whether over time pattern I will move to pattern II (the assimilation model) or pattern III( the plural model), or whether it will be stable. Assimilationists may argue that this pattern will turn gradually into pattern II while pluralists may assume that it will be transformed over time into pattern III.

I expect that pattern I is the best model for explaining the impact of Korean-American Evangelicalism on facilitating assimilation and at the same time reinforcing ethnicity. Unlike cross-cultural psychologists, I don’t think that this pattern solely implies a preference for integration. Other modes of combination between assimilation and ethnicity such as adding, blending, conflicting, and replacing can be considered in pattern I. These various modes may produce other behaviors and attitudes besides the integration attitude.

Previous research on religion among immigrants has tended to highlight either the maintaining of ethnicity(pattern III) or assimilation (pattern II). It is no longer adequate, however, to simply test the hypothesis of the assimilation model. The more important task is to analyze the interplay between these two processes, examining how Evangelicalism serves the dual purposes of both reinforcing ethnicity and advancing assimilation( pattern I). Is any tension caused by this dual role of Evangelicalism, and if so how do Evangelicals in pattern I deal with it? While there are variations among Korean-American Evangelicals, my preliminary interviews and survey data show that, despite cultural assimilation, second generation Evangelicals and Korean international student Evangelicals have a high level of ethnic respect and identity which are not just symbolic but which yield a particular pattern of ethnic behavior.