| Why is it that the "canonical" concept of "assimilation," widely used in immigration and cognate studies for over a century, continues to fuel heated debate? This study examines the evolution of the concept in master texts and a sample of 598 scholarly articles written between 1869 and 2011. The articles were drawn from a universe of nearly 6,000 published in dozens of social science journals over a span of 140 years. Five thirty-year periods were identified, marking the "emergence" (1869--1899), "crystallization" (1900--1929), "augmentation" (1930--1959), "implosion" (1960--1989) and "recurrence" (1990--2011) of the concept in their historical, sociopolitical and normative contexts. Cross-citation analysis of the master sources provided a basis for the content analysis of the sampled articles. Usage frequency measures were followed by deep coding to reveal differential connotations. Variations in the meaning and usage of "assimilation" were found across twelve categories: agency (who performs the assimilating), verb valency (who assimilated whom or what), process, power, homogeneity, generation, economic class, exclusivity, exogamy, outcome synonyms, and "endpoint.";The findings demonstrate that the concept of "assimilation" has been used inconsistently from the start, particularly in the dimensions of agency, verb valency, and especially "endpoint." Vestiges of earlier connotations remain in contemporary usage. Between and within periods, "assimilation" has often been assumed as a one-dimensional process, only rarely including intermarriage. Also shown are assumptions of homogeneity, exclusivity and indications that the power over who "assimilates" and when is held by a "dominant group." The only non-conflictual usage occurred for language "acculturation.";The study concludes that there is no consensus on how the concept is defined. Patterns of change reveal much inconsistency that diminishes the term's usefulness, which may reflect its normative ethnocentric origins. In the study of American society, it remains a problematic concept weighted down with decades of shifting connotations, multiple meanings, and conflation with other terms. Pre-theoretical assumptions need to be made overt, so-called "straight-line" models be defended, and broad comparisons between foreign and native born be avoided. The future usefulness of the "assimilation" concept will decline if the problems are not resolved, especially given the projected emergence of a majority-minority population. |
