Incorporating Diversity: Rethinking Assimilation in a Multicultural Age.

Wilkinson, Michael

Incorporating Diversity: Rethinking Assimilation in a Multicultural Age. Peter Kivisto, ed. Boulder: Paradigm, 2005. 350 pp. $29.95 sc.

Kivisto argues that assimilation, a central concept in sociology, is back. While it fell out of favour during the 1960s, developments among theorists of ethnic relations are now attempting to rethink the concept in relation to multiculturalism, transnationalism, and globalization. The purpose of the book is to provide an overview of the key ideas about assimilation (the "classical" literature on the topic). Kivisto refers to the literature as the canon of assimilation. He also recognizes that assimilation is controversial and acknowledges that there is little consensus on its meaning. Still, the concept, he argues, has not gone away. Incorporating Diversity is a collection of edited essays previously published between 1914 and 2003. Together, these seventeen chapters offer an overview on the conceptualization of assimilation and demonstrate its continued relevance.

In making his point, Kivisto first focuses on how the literature he chose ought to be considered canonical. He then outlines how key points, even with their deficiencies, can be re-appropriated, and finally, how new understandings of assimilation can explain ethnic relations in contemporary times. Overall, I found his argument intriguing. I remain sceptical, however, regarding the redeeming qualities of assimilation as a concept. In order to be convinced, one has to accept two important assumptions, both of which have consequences for understanding ethnic relations.

First, Kivisto suggests that our reading of Robert Park and the early Chicago School approach to "race relations" is incorrect. Kivisto argues that, contrary to commonly held views, Park's theory of assimilation is not linked to "race relations," whereby ethnic groups move from contact to conflict, to accommodation, and finally to assimilation (wherein minority groups adopt the majority group's culture). To read Park and suggest his view of assimilation was normative is also incorrect. Park's view of assimilation is best conceived as a process of interaction whereby ethnic groups can maintain distinctive identities and be committed to the civic goals of the state. In other words, Park's assimilation view provides an explanation for the coexistence of cultural pluralism and incorporation.

If Kivisto's re-reading of Park is correct, what might be some implications? For Canadian researchers, it means we have to rethink the influence of Park and the Chicago school on the emergence and development of sociology in Canada. Two important graduates of the University of Chicago, both Park's students, were Charles Dawson and Everett Hughes. They came to Canada and developed the first sociology program at McGill University, applying much of what they learned in Chicago to their studies of urban Montreal, rural Quebec villages, and the Prairies. Even more specifically, we have to rethink the commonly held belief that Dawson and Hughes differed from Park with their modified pluralism approach to ethnic relations. If Kivisto is correct, his Canadian students actually reflected more accurately Park's views than we have historically thought. Or that his Canadian students found a cultural context more open to modified pluralist approaches than the U.S. social context, where assimilation played a key political and ideological role. Separating ideology from a descriptive process of ethnic interaction may be harder than imagined.

The second implication is related to our current understanding of assimilation, pluralism, and global society. To argue for the relevance of assimilation, even a reconfigured assimilation, may not make sense in a globalized and transnational world where identities are now optional. Kivisto's approach critiques multicultural theorists precisely because they attempt to discover what it is that holds a diverse society together. Yet he points out they never use the word assimilation to discuss ethnic interactions. Rather, multicultural theorists use cognates like incorporation, integration, or inclusion. For Kivisto, this is precisely what theorists of assimilation and multiculturalism have in common--accounting for diversity and unity which, says the author, is the heritage of assimilation theory. However, what both assimilation and pluralist theories may be missing is contemporary ways in which migrants bypass these arguments in a transnational and global world. It could be argued that migrants are increasingly utilizing a translocal identity (identities not rooted in one location) which bypasses the concerns of nation-states over similarity or difference. In the end, we may be talking about the same thing. Perhaps it is the way assimilation historically is used to prescribe a certain course for ethnic groups that is problematic. Does that make assimilation less useful as a concept?

For these reasons, I find Kivisto's argument extremely fascinating, yet I am not entirely convinced. Kivisto is a well respected social theorist and he should be read by university students and researchers. This is an engaging volume for all who are interested in social theory and ethnic studies.

Michael Wilkinson; Michael.Wilkinson@twu.ca

Department of Sociology, Trinity Western University