Introduction
Nowadays, in the age of overall migration, it is particularly critical to examine the mechanisms of such processes as assimilation and pluralism. The paper at hand is, thereby, aimed at analyzing the relevant concepts on the basis of the two readings elucidating these problems.
Body of text
First and foremost, it is essential to note that such phenomena as assimilation and pluralism are closely interconnected as they both deal with the aspects of ethnicity and its integration into a new environment. Marger notes that both concepts have a similar dimension structure regardless of their opposite character. Thus, according to the author, pluralism, as well as assimilation, has cultural and structural dimensions (Marger 172). One might, consequently, assume that a successful assimilation reduces the expression of pluralism.
The analysis of the readings makes one suggest that the process of assimilation is more beneficial for the host society. Hence, the minority groups adopt the norms and the traditions of the locals so that the latter are enabled to preserve the habitual environment. Meanwhile, from the migrants’ perspective, the process of assimilation might be regarded as destructive. Thus, for example, Waters and Ueda point out that one of the principal traits of the US assimilation policy is “the absence of a positive role for the ethnic or racial group” (130). The unwillingness of the locals to get acquainted with the cultural traditions of the minority groups leaves the former no other choice but to neglect their roots and begin the lives from scratch.
One believes that the underestimation of the cultural significance of the “outside” communities results in the extension of pluralism. Whereas some ethnic groups willingly adopt the new rules and mentality, other minorities show reluctance in giving up their background. Hence, Marger provides an example of Euro-Americans and racial-ethnical groups. According to the author, the first group is not likely to experience any problems with adaptation, while the latter tends to struggle for the preservation of their ethnic traditions (Marger 173).
As a result, more and more minority groups tend to express resistance to the complete adaptation of new rules. Waters and Ueda support this idea saying that immigrant groups are “no longer exclusively focused on assimilation” (135). Thereby, one might suppose that the minorities are likely to strengthen their community ties and relations in the future perspective.
Finally, it is essential to note that another reason for ethnical groups to prefer pluralism to assimilation, in the current context, is the fact that they do not inevitably start “at the bottom of the labor” now (Waters and Ueda 127). According to the specialists, assimilation is more typical of the middle-class groups that, on the one hand, do not possess enough financial freedom to feel independent of the host community, and, on the other hand, have a relatively favorable background to hope for a successful adaptation. The authors point out that a large percentage of immigrants today, come to the USA with a substantial financial base that means they do not have an urgent need to be integrated into the cultural and traditional environment of the host country (Waters and Ueda 128).
Conclusion
The analysis of the relevant readings makes one suppose that there is a tendency that implies gradual prevalence of pluralism over assimilation in the modern society. Minority groups do not eagerly give up their roots due to different factors. Some of them cannot do that because of their religious beliefs, others are financially independent, and some communities are too disadvantaged to make any attempts to get integrated.
References
Marger, Martin. Race and Ethnic Relations, Belmont, California: Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.
Waters, Mary, and Reed Ueda. The New Americans, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2007. Print.