The Importance of "Community" in the Process of Immigrant Assimilation

Abstract

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 forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org..

A theoretical framework for the investigation of the role and significance of communication in the development of the sense of community among English‐speaking Caribbean immigrants

“…Another motivating contextual condition in the world of the Caribbean immigrant is the "disorganization" (Adler, 1977;Brown, 1969;Mangalam & Schwarsweller, 1970;Fitzpatrick, 1966;Ramos, 1980;Borrie, 1959) the immigrant experiences as a result of the differences between the native and the new ways of life. Because the culture of the new society remains different from the native culture of the Caribbean immigrants, even as the immigrants make progress, they continually will perceive a lack of an optimal level of adjustment to the way of life of the new society.…”

“…One is a belief, the Caribbean migrant ideology (Philpott, 1968;Regis, 1983). Another is the "disorganization" ("Theory and Practice," 1959; Adler, 1977;Fitzpatrick, 1966) (Patterson, 1978;Philpott, 1968;Regis, 1988). The migrant ideology is manifested in the tendency of Caribbean immigrants, reported by Philpott (1968) and Lowenthal (1972), to send remittances to their home islands; in the tendency of the Caribbean immigrants, reported by Bonnet (1980), to think in terms of returning home; and the tendency of the immigrants, obvious from a listing of the objectives of at least one island group (Lynch, 1977), to remain interested in the home island.…”

Community wealth building or local authority rhetoric?

“…This somewhat contested socially constructed term (Cohen, 1982) is viewed as being ‘in transition as a result of major social transformations which have brought with them new cultural and political experiences and forms of living’ (Delanty, 2009: 150). Whilst its literal meaning of ‘bringing together’ (com) ‘into one single unit’ (unity) evokes a sense of commonalities and solidarity, it is often used to define groups on the basis of what separates them from others rather than the commonalities they share (Fitzpatrick, 1966; Barth, 1969). ‘Different uses and interpretations of the term are unavoidable’ (Delanty, 2009: xii) but there is a common understanding that ‘community’ is more about people than just a geographical area; and that it represents a nostalgic longing for solidarity and collective identity (Delanty, 2009).…”

The Social Context of Racial Boundary Negotiations: Segregation, Hate Crime, and Hispanic Racial Identification in Metropolitan America

“…First, in segregated ethnic communities there is less opportunity for the day-to-day interactions with out-group members that previous research has highlighted as a key to boundary blurring (Alba and Nee 2003). Second, segregated communities are more likely to develop a wide range of local institutions such as grocery stores, bars, schools and churches based on shared racial/ethnic identification (Fitzpatrick 1966). Third, ethnically segregated communities also influence the demographic make-up of schools and businesses, limiting the diversity of dating pools and thus decreasing the likelihood of inter-racial/ethnic dating and marriage (Feliciano et al 2011).…”