Segregation. Eric Fong

across levels and systems (Parsons 1951). In sum, distinguishing various boundaries of segregation offers a useful way to theorize segregation, and offers new opportunities for empirical research.

Consequences of Segregation

Opportunity and inequality are organized across space and territory. Galster and Sharkey (2017) showed that opportunities vary by geography and scale, from neighborhood to city to region. These opportunities include economic benefits, social networks, and social support. In addition to shaping economic and social opportunities, segregation affects the physical and psychological well-being of individuals. This is because each neighborhood has risks and protections related to the quality of the physical and social environment, which in turn are often based on the socioeconomic profile of the community. Physical amenities are determined by the investments of residents and the services provided by the local government. The social environment is defined by the behavior of the residents of the neighborhood. The quality of these neighborhood factors is related to the physical and psychological well-being of residents.

      The extent of ethno-racial segregation varies by society. Some societies, such as Japan, maintain ethno-racial and cultural homogeneity, making it difficult for other ethnic members to be integrated (Takenaka, Nakamuro, and Ishida 2016). Western multicultural societies such as the United States and Canada have relied on many distinct ethno-racial groups immigrating or being forcibly brought into the country, as happened with the slave trade. The potential for social instability in these societies is high if groups cannot achieve meaningful social integration over time. In hope of reducing segregation, multicultural societies discourage homophily and encourage social integration between groups in hope of reducing segregation. Segregation in these societies has widely come to be seen as undesirable, especially the long-term segregation of disadvantaged minorities. However, efforts to reduce segregation have been slow and achieved mixed success, which is a topic that will be discussed in the following chapters.

Changing views about segregation as well as lessons learned about the ill effects of concentrated disadvantage from black–white “hypersegregation” in the United States have led to efforts to reduce racial segregation (a topic we will be discussing in Chapter 4). For example, urban planning and public housing practices that exacerbated racial segregation in the mid-twentieth-century projects have been replaced with newer models that explicitly encourage mixed-race and mixed-income communities. The 1950s–60s Civil Rights Movement in the United States also shifted public thinking away from false “separate but equal” framing for black and white accommodation, and toward new ideas that challenged homophily.

A Society without Segregation

      Allport (1954) believed in the redemptive power of social contact for ameliorating racial prejudice. His contact hypothesis argued that reducing inter-group prejudice required active efforts to ensure a society that brought groups together in neutral territory, with relatively equal power, and encouraged cooperative personal relations. During this period, scholars theorized the forms of integration necessary to bridge the social and physical divide between ethno-racial groups (Anderson 2013). Advocates seeking to end segregation argued that ethno-racial harmony required society to foster normative, functional, and communicative integration.

Normative integration is the extent to which different groups share the same beliefs, values, and norms (Durkheim 2002 [1897]; Parsons 1951). It may be based on a distinct local culture (e.g. the Southern “culture of honor”) or similar exposure to mass socialization (e.g. national media, religious or school systems) that instill common mores (e.g. “family values”). While some beliefs, values, and norms may be shared between groups, others may be held by specific groups at the low end of the group hierarchy in the society, through a process of “normative inversion” that reverses the rank order by these groups considering themselves “superior” to the dominant group (Wimmer 2008). A society today moving toward greater normative integration between status groups can benefit from these shared understandings and values.

      Functional integration is the degree to which status groups experience direct and indirect interdependence (Durkheim 2002 [1897]; Parsons 1951). It may be based on obvious and direct relationships that demand interdependence (e.g. house slaves and their masters; a local bakery and residents of the neighborhood), or long chains of interrelationships in which all parties in the chain are interdependent (e.g. the chain of interdependence linking commuters on a congested US freeway, oil companies, oilfield workers in the Middle East, American foreign policy, etc.). Functional integration typically involves exchanges of economic resources that are difficult to obtain, but these exchanges are also based on principles such as equality, reciprocity, or market value.

Communicative integration shifts the focus from outcomes to the process of striving for mutual understanding through rational-critical discussion or debate. For example, a forum where neighbors from different racial/ethnic groups learn from each other through discussions and coming to appreciate each other’s culture is communicative integration. This is what Habermas (1984) considers the process of achieving common understanding between individuals in the “lifeworld,” which is at the heart of social integration. In theory, communicative integration comes about in settings that meet criteria like those proposed by Allport (1954) for reducing inter-group prejudice. As Habermas (1984) explains, this process is a prerequisite for genuine moral consensus or normative integration. The challenge is bringing to the table social actors of different status groups with equal capacities and voices, so that there can be “ideal speech situations.” Interacting in informal settings, such as chatting with neighbors, or talking casually with colleagues during lunch, is more likely to bring about communicative integration. Breaking down the boundaries of segregation by working toward these forms of integration is essential for healthy multi-ethnic societies.

      There is a clear contrast between this recent work and scholars from the earlier twentieth century. These earlier scholars were focused on describing segregation as a natural consequence of human ecology rather than as a social problem to be ameliorated by active efforts. There was not the same rights-based moral framing in the claims about segregation. Earlier scholars did not focus on the power and status differences between groups, and the long-term disadvantage that was created by these processes. For example, Park saw segregation as a natural process when he noted: “One of the incidents of the growth of the community is the social selection and segregation of the population, and the creation, on the one hand, of natural social groups, and on the other, of natural social areas” (1926: 8). Furthermore, prejudice was seen as a “more or less instinctive and spontaneous disposition to maintain social distances” from other groups (Park 1924: 343) rather than a changeable viewpoint that could be addressed through inter-group contact (Allport 1954). Without much regard to issues of rights, justice, stratification, and changeability of prejudice, scholars from this early period focused on how residential segregation is made possible through the perpetual “sorting and shifting of the different elements of population differentiation” (Burgess 1928: 105).

      As our understanding of the concept deepens, we must recognize that segregation is not inevitable. Segregation can be minimized with thoughtful public policy, education, and sincere efforts to forge common ground among different groups. Because segregation has significant negative consequences for society, it is important to thoroughly understand its causes, magnitude, and consequences so as to achieve a more just society.

Conclusion

Over the past century, there have been shifts in how scholars theorize and study segregation. For example, the classical framework of human ecology that guided early work focused on the sorting and shifting that occurs when groups compete for scarce resources. By contrast, contemporary approaches view segregation as resulting from discrimination, stratification, and inequality, and as an important impediment to social justice and societal well-being.

      The principle of homophily is a powerful motivator for many individuals to seek out similar people with whom to live and socialize. Voluntary choices that create