Segregation. Eric Fong

Christopher suggested that a high level of racial residential segregation reflects the small size of the colonizer group and their cultural preference. Lewis and Harris (2013) researched the history of segregation in Bombay and found a high level of residential segregation between European and local residents in the colonial period before the 1950s. During the Japanese colonial rule of Taiwan, the area of Seimon-cho (modern name Ximending) was developed for new Japanese immigrants. This extensive body of scholarship makes it clear that residential segregation has persisted for centuries, mainly because colonizers prefer staying among themselves for reasons of safety and cultural identity. Residential segregation also reflects own-group preference, prejudice against other groups, and affinity for familiar culture and social practices.

In North America, a plethora of studies have documented residential segregation of blacks. In the United States, the Great Migration of African Americans from the South to the North has transformed racial residential patterns in major cities. Segregation drastically increased from the 1950s to the 1970s. Some suggested that the increase largely reflected the increase in population of African Americans (Lieberson 1981). Some also argued the increase was a result of government policies, such as a policy known as “redlining” (i.e. the government graded neighborhoods into four categories: neighborhoods in which a majority of their residents were racial minorities were marked in red, implying that people living there were high-risk mortgage lenders) (Rothstein 2017), and practices of real estate intuitions, such as “blockbusting” or steering potential buyers (Massey and Denton 1993). In Canada, the black population increased during the American Revolution as the British promised freedom and settlement for “slaves” who fought on the British side. However, after arriving in Canada, most blacks were granted parcels of land located in remote rural areas, especially Nova Scotia. Thus, black segregation has been documented there since the eighteenth century (Fong 1996).

Just as residential segregation has accompanied the development of cities since their birth, social segregation among groups has also been common in human history. As civilizations became more complex due to greater surplus being generated from control over the environment, status hierarchies expanded, and formal and informal forms of segregation became common. For example, during the Middle Ages, there was limited daily interaction among members of the royal and noble classes and the peasant class, let alone social mobility across these classes. For centuries, the caste system in India allowed only endogamy, which is the custom of marrying only within the limits of a local community, clan, or tribe (Olcott 1944). In China, the aristocratic class in most dynasties maintained a clear group boundary. In Japan, the burakumin, an “untouchable” class at the bottom of the social hierarchy, have experienced social isolation for generations. Religious groups sometimes retain their own identity and practices by means of voluntary social segregation. Since medieval times, monks and nuns have stayed in monasteries and convents to maintain social separation from others and aid religious devotion. Mennonites and Amish communities retain their social segregation from other groups for years. Minority and immigrant groups have experienced social segregation voluntarily or involuntarily in schools and workplaces throughout centuries.

      In the past century, the study of racial and ethnic segregation became more important than ever as many countries (e.g. Australia, Canada, the United States) became more racially and ethnically diverse due to the arrival of immigrants from all over the world. As the level of racial and ethnic diversity increases, the level of residential segregation for some groups has remained steady or even increased. Given the broad and negative impact of segregation on the social and economic outcomes of segregated groups, it is important to have a better understanding of the reasons for its emergence in a multi-ethnic context, the mechanisms for maintaining it, and its wide-ranging consequences.

Chapter-by-Chapter Outline of the Book

      This book is an in-depth examination of segregation, with topics ranging from its societal importance, theoretical foundations, conceptual framing, methodological approaches, consequences, and potential remedies at both the community and macro level.

Chapter 2 outlines the significance of segregation as a social problem and reviews the major theories and concepts scholars use to study it. We begin by defining segregation and illustrating its relevance to social stratification and group well-being. Segregation has significant economic, psychological, and social implications for individuals, groups, and their societies. To gain conceptual clarity, we expand on our typology of segregation to distinguish it by type (physical, social, or a combination), nature (voluntary and involuntary), and consequences (economic, psychological, and social). This expanded typology touches on the definition, causes, and consequences of segregation. For example, as noted above, one helpful way to distinguish segregation is whether it is voluntary or involuntary. While voluntary segregation is often a group strategy for adaptation or a reflection of preference, involuntary segregation is often a result of constrained choice due to discrimination, prejudice, or other variables that limit access, such as income.

      Chapter 3 turns to how social scientists measure segregation. Identifying patterns allows us to describe what segregation looks like in different places, and helps us to quantify the extent of segregation using indices and other summary measures. Quantitative measures of segregation show that it is common, with almost everyone experiencing some form of it in their lifetime. Representing the “bird’s-eye” view, we first discuss segregation indices that seek to summarize important features of city-wide segregation patterns. Quantitative indices developed by sociologists and geographers can describe the evenness, exposure, concentration, centralization, and clustering of different groups within the city (Massey and Denton 1988). We will review methodological innovations seeking to improve the accuracy of these measures, as well as new measures that better incorporate spatial relations between groups, account for segregation in multigroup settings, and allow for comparison of different countries and urban scale. The ubiquitous nature of segregation suggests that it is a good entry point to understand group dynamics and individual behaviors. However, studying these important processes requires zooming in from the bird’s-eye perspective toward the ground level. Representing a “on-foot” or “street-level” view, we will discuss how segregation can be created and maintained through a broader range of physical, social, and symbolic boundaries that often create social distance even when groups are physically proximate. Together, both bird’s-eye and ground-level assessments of segregation are important for explaining the social, economic, and cultural factors that create and maintain that segregation over time.

Chapter 4 describes patterns of racial and ethnic residential segregation in different countries, but with particular focus on the United States. We then discuss theoretical perspectives from social science that seek to explain residential segregation: spatial assimilation, place stratification, group preference, and social structural sorting. The spatial assimilation perspective emphasizes the importance of socioeconomic differences between groups to explain the segregation of different groups. The place stratification perspective highlights the process through which the dominant group maintain spatial separation from other groups. The group preference perspective suggests that segregation reflects group relations. The discussion highlights the debate over voluntary versus involuntary segregation with respect to residential segregation. The social structural sorting perspective points out that we are familiar with only a limited number of neighborhoods. Such knowledge is shaped by the social structure of the society in which we grew up. Our choice of residence is thus based on this small number of familiar neighborhoods, which in turn perpetuates residential segregation. Finally, we highlight how residential segregation can have drastic consequences for the life chances of individuals. The discussion demonstrates that racial and ethnic residential segregation is the spatial foundation of inequality and almost every individual experiences it in some form.

Chapter 5 focuses on residential segregation that is patterned by both economic and racial/ethnic status, namely when there is income segregation and poverty concentration of racial and ethnic groups. The discussion