Assimilated or the boundary of Whiteness expanded? A boundary model of group belonging

Abstract

AbstractIn 19th century U.S., European ethnics were considered dark‐skinned and working‐class. By the 1950s, they were re‐categorized as White Americans. Assimilation theory suggests that Europeans' intergroup interactions such as socioeconomic attainments and intermarriage with Anglo‐Saxon Whites led to their assimilation and racial re‐categorization. The theory anticipates that class mobility translates into re‐categorization into Whiteness such that non‐Europeans' upward mobility will also propel them into Whiteness. Despite non‐Europeans' successful intergroup interactions, their assimilation and belonging is still up for debate. If both Europeans and non‐Europeans have participated in similar rates of intergroup interactions, which other factor has determined their differential assimilation outcomes? In response, we conceptualize a boundary model for understanding group belonging. To do so, we distinguish between symbolic and phenotype or somatic race. The former provides and attaches meanings to soma. This boundary model comprises the combined effects of individuals' intergroup interactions and majority groups' symbolic racial boundary expansion‐contraction. Assimilation outcome occurs only when majority groups' boundary expands to recognize intergroup interactions as meaningful and to include newcomers as racial group insiders. We revisit the case of European ethnics to show that the symbolic boundary of Whiteness expanded to re‐categorize them as assimilated Whites. Accordingly, we formulate four hypotheses about the possibilities of re‐categorizing groups in and out of a master category such as Whiteness.