Encyclopedia of Sociology Vol

Accommodation refers to a decision by two or more groups to put aside a significant difference that exists between them in order to stress common interests. This leads to cultural pluralism— that is, a number of different cultural patterns coexisting in the same society. The United States is a pluralist society in that it permits many distinctive religious, ethnic, and racial groups to exist side by side. The need of new Asian groups to retain their cultural identities is reflected in the existence in many large cities of Chinatowns, Koreatowns, and Japantowns. Some areas in large cities have signs only in Chinese or in both Chinese and English. This has produced some conflict with non-Chinese residents in these communities and has sparked ‘‘English-only’’ movements and resistance to bilingual instruction in public schools.

A great deal of research has been undertaken examining the impact of intergroup contact on intergroup hostility and prejudice (see reviews by Stephan 1985; Williams 1977). Many of the early studies looked at naturally occurring intergroup contacts. A substantial number of laboratory and field investigations have been undertaken focusing on those characteristics of intergroup contacts that foster positive intergroup outcomes. Stephan (1985) summarizes the findings with regard to this problem in a list of thirteen propositions, such as: ‘‘Cooperation within groups should be maximized and competition between groups should be minimized’’ and ‘‘Members of the in-group and the outgroup should be of equal status both within and outside the contact situation’’ (p. 643).

There is a wealth of information and research on intergroup relations. However there is a definite lack of application of this information when dealing with intergroup conflicts, especially in the area of public policy. Brewer (1997) identifies several reasons for this gap between research and practice in reducing intergroup conflicts.

There have traditionally been different approaches to researching the processes involved in intergroup conflict. Research traditions focus on different levels of aggregation, with some focusing on interpersonal processes and others focusing on the group level of analysis. Additionally there are theoretical perspectives that study intergroup conflict with a primary focus on concepts in the cognitive, affective, or behavioral realm. These different

approaches tend to generate literatures that remain isolated, rarely citing research outside their own perspective.

While these separate research traditions might use different conceptual frameworks, they do have one thing in common that contributes to a lack of direct participation in the policy arena. Science has a norm of objectivity, and this leads many researchers to avoid advocating for specific action by governments or groups. Scientific research is seen as producing facts, and the role of the scientist is to produce those facts, not to decide what to do about them. The expert is hesitant to become the advocate.

History may contribute to this feeling, both for the researchers and the policy makers. In the 1950s and 1960s, much social science research (specifically the ‘‘contact hypothesis’’) was used as the basis for public policy designed to reduce racial tension and conflict through the integration of schools. The research outcomes on desegregation were mixed, due in part to an oversimplified application of theoretical ideas that were very specific and conditional in nature. Additionally, the social science research on which desegregation was in part based was developed in carefully controlled laboratory experimentation. In real-life situations, which are far more chaotic and complex, the mechanisms of the theories might be overwhelmed by other factors, factors the theories were never intended to deal with. While the research community might be happy to learn from the failure of experiments and to argue about the failure of the assumptions of models to be met, the policy maker sees failure of a program and an increase in conflict among constituents. So the scientists see the politicians as understanding neither the restricted nature of most theories nor the process of the growth of knowledge as including failures. The policy makers see only that the experts were wrong and that their advice created conflict (or a perception of increased conflict) when a reduction was expected.

While research on desegregation was based on the contact hypothesis and ideas of assimilation, current research is based more on ideas of pluralism and multiculturalism. This perspective focuses on promoting positive in-group attitudes by emphasizing group identities and characteristics, and trying to make these identities respected

and recognized by other groups; to be proud of one’s own ways while recognizing the pride of other’s for their own ways. This creates some tensions and potential pitfalls when using this branch of theory and research as a basis for public policy.

Much of intergroup theory has focused on and developed from the situation in the United States; however, recently more attention and research have been applied to the problem in other areas of the world. With increasing migration and diversity in western Europe has come a concurrent increase in tension and conflict, and this has generated a surge of research. Pettigrew (1998) shows that ‘‘despite sharp differences in national histories, political systems, and minorities, this new work reveals considerable consistency across the nations of western Europe. It also largely replicates and extends, rather than rebuts, the North American literature’’ (p. 98). He shows similarities such as the higher level of ‘‘subtle’’ prejudice compared with ‘‘blatant’’ prejudice. Blatant prejudice is tied to perceived biological differences between groups and is ‘‘hot, close and direct’’ (p. 83). Subtle prejudice is tied to the ‘‘perceived threat of minority groups to traditional values’’ (p. 83) and the ‘‘lack of positive feeling towards minorities’’ (p. 83). In addition, the mechanisms of intergroup contact and relative deprivation seem to function in similiar ways in many North American and European populations.

Given the tension between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East, it should not be surprising that theories of intergroup relations should be tested there in attempts to reduce conflicts. One such study attempted to use the contact between Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel that occurred in joint medical teams to mitigate intergroup stereotypes and prejudice (Desivilya, 1998). The study found that while the contact reduced prejudice in the local work situation, that reduction was not carried into the larger societal context and overall national image and ethnic stereotypes were not changed.

INTERORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONS

An organization is a group with three main features: a goal or set of goals, a boundary, and a

technology (Aldrich 1979). Although we say organizations have goals, what is meant is that much of what organizations actually do seems as if it is directed to a shared objective or set of objectives. This may be for the sake of appearance, and/or the organization may really be goal-oriented. The boundary feature simply refers to the distinction that an organization makes between members and nonmembers. Finally, technology refers to the organization’s division of labor or to the set of activities that the organization performs as part of its daily routines in processing new materials or people.

Each of these characteristics can be illustrated by the university. Its goals are often set forth, albeit in glowing and idealized terms, in its general catalogue. These typically include teaching, research, and public service. One must apply to become a member of the university—student, faculty or staff. And such statuses are frequently difficult to come by. The university’s technology includes its classrooms and laboratories as well as the lecture and discussion methods of instruction.

Interorganizational relations refers to the relations between or among two or more organizations. There have been several overviews of the field of interorganizational relations (Aldrich 1979; Aldrich and Whitten 1981; Galaskiewicz 1985; Mulford 1984; Van de Ven and Ferry 1980).

Every organization has relationships with other organizations. In the case of the university, if it is to function it must have students, and to recruit them it must have relationships with high schools, junior colleges, and other universities. These students (and faculty and staff) must eat, work, and play, so the university has relationships with food, housing, energy, and other suppliers of various kinds in the community. And, of course, the university needs other resources, especially funds, and therefore must relate to government agencies and alumni to obtain them (Clark 1983).

Organizations are ambivalent about establishing an interorganizational relationship to obtain resources (Yuchtman and Seashore 1967). On the one hand, they want and need resources if they are to survive; but on the other hand, organizations wish to maintain their autonomy, and insofar as they establish an interorganizational tie, they will

be expected to reciprocate, and hence their freedom will be constrained. It is assumed that organizations want their autonomy from other organizations, but their survival needs induce them to relinquish some autonomy.

Galaskiewicz (1985) claims that interorganizational relations take place for three major reasons: to obtain and to allocate resources, to form coalitions to enhance power, and to achieve community acceptance or legitimacy.

Interorganizational relations research has been undertaken at three levels: the dyad (Hall et al. 1977), the action set (Hirsch 1972), and the network (Burt 1983; Galaskiewicz 1985). The simplest form of interorganizational relation is the dyad, which simply refers to the relationships of two organizations to each other. The action set concept developed form Merton’s (1957) notion of role sets. Caplow (1964) and Evan (1966) took Merton’s idea and applied it to the relationships between a focal organization, such as a university, and its pairwise relationship with other organizations with whom it interacts. One might examine the relationship between a university and the office of the mayor of the city within which it is located, and then study the effects of changes in this relationship as they influence other relationships in the set of organizations (Van de Ven and Ferry 1980). Aldrich (1979) has termed the group of organizations that constitute a temporary alliance for a particular or limited goal the ‘‘action set.’’ Networks of organizations contain the complete set of ties that connect all the organizations in a population of organizations (Aldrich 1979; Hall 1987; Van de Ven and Ferry 1980). Although the approaches of Aldrich and Van de Ven and Ferry are not identical conceptually, both orientations toward networks focus on identifying all connections of specified kinds that take place within a particular organizational population. Hence, the analysis of networks is far more complex than that of action sets or dyads.

The body of knowledge in the area of interorganizational relationships is not extensive, and what there is has focused on social services. There exists quite a bit of theoretical information but very few large databases. With the exception of research on corporate board of directors’ interlocks (Burt 1983; Burt et al. 1980), there is little work on the private sector.

An early area of interest to theorists was the general state of the organizational and interorganizational environment. Aldrich (1979) identified six dimensions of environments: capacity, homogeneity/heterogeneity, stability/instability, concentration/dispersion, domain consensus/dissensus, and turbulence. Capacity refers to the relative level of resources available in the organization’s environment. A rich environment refers to one where resources are plentiful, while a lean environment is the opposite.

Homogeneity/heterogeneity refers to the extent to which organizations, individuals, or even social forces that influence resources are relatively similar or different. For example, does a focal organization deal with a relatively uniform and a highly heterogeneous population? If one contrasted the labor forces that a Japanese and an American firm draw from to recruit, one would find that the Japanese firm confronts a more homogeneous environment than does its American counterpart. This is, of course, because American workers are much more heterogeneous than are Japanese workers in education, ethnic-racial background, and many other features (Cole 1979).

Stability/instability concerns the degree of turnover in various elements of the environment. Again, if Japanese and American firms are compared, we would anticipate greater turnover in the latter than in the former. The advantage of low turnover or a stable environment is that it permits the organization to develop fixed routines and structures.

Aldrich (1979) refers to the extent to which resources are distributed evenly in the environment or concentrated in a particular area as concentration/dispersion. For example, the RTD is the major bus company in Los Angeles, and its potential ridership is dispersed over an area of more than 400 square miles. Such long transportation lanes present major problems, in contrast, for example, with the Santa Monica Bus Company, whose ridership is concentrated in a much smaller and geographically homogeneous area.

Organizations differ in the extent to which their claim to a specific domain is contested or acknowledged by other organizations. Domain consensus refers to a situation wherein an organization’s claim to a domain is recognized, while domain

dissensus refers to a situation where disagreement exists over the legitimacy of an organization’s domain.

The final organizational dimension is turbulence. This term refers to the extent to which there are increasing environmental interconnections; the more interconnections, the greater the turbulence. Areas where many new organizations are emerging are generally areas of greater turbulence.

Some factors have been shown to be involved in the dissolution of interorganizational relations. Institutional forces, power, and competition are factors involved in the stability of these relations (Baker et al. 1998). Institutional forces reduce the likelihood of ties being broken. Personal relationships and structural attachments (such as coordination of accounting methods) represent ‘‘sunk costs’’ for the organization. To break ties with one organization and forge them with another takes significant effort and time. Power may increase or decrease the tendency for relations to dissolve. Given a client–provider relation, if the client has high power it increases the likelihood of the relation being broken, while high power for the provider decreases the tendency for the relation to break. Competition tends to destabilize ties between organizations, although the effect of competition is weak relative to power and structural attachments. In situations where there is much competition, there are more opportunities for defection from a relation and more incentive to do so.

A great deal of the work on interorganizational relations has concerned delivery systems and stressed coordination (Mulford 1984; Rogers and Whetten 1982). This is because a central problem in service delivery involves overcoming the segmentation and fragmentation of services created by the large number of organizations with overlapping responsibilities and jurisdictions. Bachrach (1981) has identified a number of factors that discourage coordination among organizations serving the chronically mentally ill, including budget constraints, lack of a mandate to engage in interorganizational planning, and confusion due to separate funding streams for care. Other factors also discourage coordination, such as differences in organizational activities and resources; multiple network memberships and consequent conflicting obligations felt by constituent organizations; and a lack of complementary goals and role exceptions (Baker and O’Brien 1971).

Each organization in a delivery system relies on the other organizations in the system, since no single unit can generate all the resources necessary for survival. Hence, the organization in a system enters into exchanges with other organizations and consumers. It is assumed that each organization or system seeks to better its bargaining position. This perspective on delivery systems as interorganizational networks is generally labeled the resource dependence perspective (Pfeffer and Salanick 1978).

Contingency theory (Lawrence and Lorsch 1967) assumes that organizational functioning depends on the intertwining of technological and environmental constraints and the structures that emerge to deal with these constraints. The theory assumes, as does system theory more generally, that there is no single most effective way to organize (Katz and Kahn 1966), that the environment within which an organization functions influences the effectiveness of an organization, and that different organizational structures can produce different performance outcomes.

Scott (1998) uses systems theory to describe how organizations manage their task environments and their institutional environments, and adapt to their changing organization–environment interdependencies. Scott stresses the differences between technical and institutional environmental controls.

Although there is not a great deal of comparative research on interorganizational relations, some comparisons have been done, for example, on the differences in the patterns of relations in Japan and the United States. American companies tend to be connected to more organizations, have a more formalized and more extensive body of rules for the relationship, and exchange more information across the relations than their Japanese counterparts (Aldrich et al. 1998; Jang 1997). Claims such as these must be taken with a degree of caution, as there is a great deal of influence between Japanese and American firms. For example, Japanese auto assembly plants, which started in the United States, brought both intraorganizational and interorganizational patterns of organization, for example, team-based work groups and ‘‘just-in- time’’ delivery of parts needed in product assembly (Florida and Kenney 1991). Since that time,

these organizational characteristics have become more common in the United States, and this increasing interdependence and connection between organizations can be seen in the impact of labor disputes extending through the economy at an increasingly rapid rate. A strike at a parts production facility that makes transmissions can shut down numerous auto production plants in a few days. A strike at Federal Express or United Parcel Service leads to economic impacts nationand world wide literally overnight.

This globalization of economic relations mirrors a globalization of international relations. Both on an ongoing basis (e.g., the G-7, or Group of Seven Economic Conferences; the European Union; the United Nations) and on a temporary basis (e.g., the Gulf War, U.N. peacekeeping missions), interorganizational relations are becoming more and more common and vital to the peace and prosperity of the world (Alter and Hage 1993).

Brewer, Marilyn B. 1997 ‘‘The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations: Can Research Inform Practice?’’ Journal of Social Issues 53(1):197–212.

Burt, Ronald S. 1983 Corporate Profits and Cooptation: Networks of Market Constraints and Directorate Ties in the American Economy. New York: Academic Press.

———, K.P. Christman, and H.C. Kilburn, Jr. 1980 ‘‘Testing a Structural Theory of Corporate Cooptation: Interorganizational Directorate Ties as a Strategy for Avoiding Market Constraints on Profits.’’ American Sociological Review 45:821–841.

Caplow, Theodore 1964 Principles of Organzation. New

York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

Clark, Burton 1983 The Higher Education System. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cole, Robert E. 1979 Work, Mobility, and Participation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cox, Oliver C. 1948 Caste, Class and Race: A Study in Social Dynamics. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Desivilya, Helena S. 1998 ‘‘Jewish–Arab Coexistence in Israel: The Role of Joint Professional Teams.’’ Journal of Peach Research 35(4):429–453.

REFERENCES

Aldrich, Howard 1979 Organizations and Environments.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

———, Michele Kremen Bolton, Ted Baker, and Toshihiro Sasaki 1998 ‘‘Information Exchange and Governance Structures in U.S. and Japanese R&D Consortia: Institutional and Organizational Influences.’’ IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. 45(3):263–276.

———, and D.A. Whetten 1981 ‘‘Organizational Sets, Action Sets, and Networks: Making the Most of Simplicity.’’ In P.C. Nystrom and W.H. Starbuck, eds., Handbook of Organization Design, vol. I. New York: Oxford University Press.

Allport, Gordon W. 1954 The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Alter, Catherine, and Jerald Hage 1993 Organizations Working Together. California: Sage Publications.

Bachrach, Leona L. 1981 ‘‘Continuity of Care for Chronic Mental Patients: A Conceptual Analysis.’’ American Journal of Psychiatry 138(11):1449–1456.

Baker, Frank, and Gregory O’Brien 1971 ‘‘Intersystem Relations and Coordination of Human Service Organizations.’’ American Journal of Public Health

61(1):130–137.

Baker, Wayne E., Robert R. Faulkner, and Gene A. Fisher 1998 ‘‘Hazards of the Market: The Continuity and Dissolution of Interorganizational Market Relationships.’’ American Sociological Review 63(2):147–178.

Epstein, R., and S. S. Komorita 1965 ‘‘Parental Discipline, Stimulus Characteristics of Outgroups, and Social Distance in Children.’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2:416–420.

Evan, William 1966 ‘‘The Organization Set: Toward a Theory of Interorganizational Relations.’’ In J. Thompson, ed., Approaches to Organizational Design. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Florida, Richard, and Martin Kenney 1991 ‘‘Transplanted Organizations: The Transfer of Japanese Industrial Organization to the U.S.’’ American Sociological Review 56(3):381–399.

Galaskiewicz, Joseph 1985 ‘‘Interorganizational Relations.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 11:281–304.

Hall, Richard H. 1987 Organizations: Structures, Processes and Outcomes, 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Pren- tice-Hall.

———, J. Clark, P. Giordano, P. Johnston, and M. Van Roekel 1977 ‘‘Patterns of Interorganizational Relationships.’’ Administrative Science Quarterly 22:457–474.

Hirsch, Paul M. 1972 ‘‘Processing Fads and Fashions: An Organization-Set Analysis of Cultural Industry Systems.’’ American Journal of Sociology 77:639–659.

Jang, Ha-Yong 1997 ‘‘Cultural Differences in an Interorganizational Network: Shared Public Relations Firms Among Japanese and American Companies.’’ Public Relations Review 23(1):327–342.

Katz, Daniel, and Robert L. Kahn 1966 The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Lawrence, Paul R., and J. W. Lorsch 1967 Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Cambridge, Mass.: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University.

Lieberson, Stanley 1980 A Piece of the Pie: Black and White Immigrants Since 1880. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Merton, Robert K. 1957 Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press.

Mulford, C. L. 1984 Interorganizational Relations: Impli-

cations for Community Development. New York: Human

Sciences Press.

Park, Robert E., and E. W. Burgess 1921 Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Pettigrew, Thomas F. 1998 ‘‘Reactions Toward the New Minorities of Western Europe.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 24(1):77–103.

Pfeffer, Jeffery, and G. R. Salaneik 1978 The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper and Row.

Rogers, David L., and D. A. Whetten 1982 Interorganizational Coordination: Theory, Research, Implementation. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Scott, W. R. 1998 Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems, 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pren- tice-Hall.

Seeman, Melvin 1981 ‘‘Intergroup Relations.’’ In M. Rosenberg and R.H. Turner, eds., Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives. New York: Basic Books.

Simpson, George E., and J. M. Yinger 1972 Racial and Cultural Minorities, 4th ed. New York: Harper and Row.

Stephan, Walter G. 1985 ‘‘Intergroup Relations.’’ In Gardner Lindzey and Eliot Aronson, eds., Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. II. New York: Random House.

Sumner, William Graham 1906 Folkways. Boston: Ginn.

Van de Ven, Andrew H., and D. L. Ferry 1980 Measuring and Assessing Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Vander Zanden, J.W. 1983 American Minority Relations, 4th ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Williams, Robin M. 1977 Mutual Accomodation: Ethnic

Conflict and Cooperation. Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

Yuchtman, Ephraim, and S. Seashore 1967 ‘‘A Systems Resource Approach to Organizational Effectiveness.’’

American Sociological Review 32:891–903.

OSCAR GRUSKY

JEFF ERGER

INTERMARRIAGE

Intermarriage among people of different races, religions, nationalities, and ethnicities would be a subject of little concern in many societies (Degler 1971). It should be expected of a culturally diverse society such as the United States. Indeed, the United States is the most racially and culturally diverse nation in the Western, industrialized world. The heterogeneous composition of the United States should lend itself to a high degree of tolerance and acceptance of diversity in marriage patterns among its constituent groups (Spickard 1989). Since the 1960s, we have seen a rise in the number of intermarriages between different racial groups (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1998) and also an increasing number of interfaith marriages (Kalmijn 1993; Lehrer 1998). In order to discuss past, current, and future intermarriage trends, this article examines historical and contemporary trends in black/white intermarriages, past and future directions in Asian American intermarriages, the state of interfaith marriages, and reasons for the increasing number of intermarriages.

HISTORY OF BLACK/WHITE

INTERMARRIAGES

Slavery had its greatest impact on the interracial relations of the Africans brought to the United States. Most of the slaves who came in the beginning were males, with the number of black females not equal to the number of males until 1840. As a result, the number of sexual relations between black slaves and indentured white women was fairly high. Some of these interracial relationships were more than casual contacts and ended in marriage. The intermarriage rate between male slaves and free white women increased to the extent that laws against them were passed as a prohibitive measure. Before the alarm over the rate of intermarriages, male slaves were encouraged to marry white women, thereby increasing the property of the slavemaster, since the children from such unions were also slaves (Jordan 1968).

The end of slavery did not give the black woman any right to sexual integrity. What slavery began, racism and economic exploitation continued to impose on the sexual lives of black women. In the postbellum South, black women were still at

the mercy of the carnal desires of white men. According to historians, black women were forced to give up their bodies like animals to white men at random. Many have noted that many southern white men had their first sexual experience with black women. In some cases, the use of black women as sexual objects served to maintain the double standard of sexual conduct in the white South. Many white men did not have sexual relations with white women until they married. Some southern white men were known to joke that until they married, they did not know that white women were capable of sexual intercourse (Cash 1960; Dollard 1957).

It was the protection of the sexual purity of white women that partially justified the establishment of racially segregated institutions in the South. The southern white man assumed that black men had a strong desire for intermarriage and that white women would be open to proposals from black men if they were not guarded from even meeting with them on an equal level. As Bernard (1966) writes, ‘‘The white world’s insistence on keeping Negro men walled up in the concentration camp was motivated in large part by its fear of black male sexuality’’ (p. 75).

The taboo on intermarriage was mostly centered on black men and white women. One reason for this is that white men and black women had engaged in coitus since the first black female slaves entered this country. Some black slave women were forced to engage in sexual relations with their white masters; others did so out of desire. Children resulting from these interracial sexual unions were always considered black, and the prevalent miscegenation of black women and white men has produced much lighter skinned American blacks than their African ancestors.

Traditionally, white fear of interracial relations has focused on the desire to avoid mongrelization of the races. Such a fear lacks any scientific basis, since many authorities on the subject of racial types seriously question that a pure race ever existed on this planet. Most authorities note it as an actual fact that the whole population of the world is hybrid and becoming increasingly so. At any rate, the rate of miscegenation in the past almost certainly casts doubt on any pure race theory for the United States (Day 1972).

Intermarriage is certainly nothing new in the United States. Its meaning and dynamics have, however, changed over the 400 years since blacks entered this country. In the era before slavery, black male and white female indentured servants often mated with each other. During the period of black bondage, most mixed sexual unions took place between white men and female slaves, often involving coercion by the white partner. A similar pattern of miscegenation occurred after slavery, with a white man and a black woman as the typical duo. When blacks moved to larger cities outside the South, the black male–white female pairing became more common. As is commonly known, legal unions between the races were prohibited by law in many states until 1967. But legal prohibitions were not the only deterrent to such biracial unions. This country’s history is replete with acts of terror and intimidation of interracial couples who violated the society’s taboos on miscegenation. While blacks and whites came together in love and marriage over the years, it was generally at a high cost, ranging from death to social ostracism (Stember 1976).

CONTEMPORARY BLACK/WHITE

MARRIAGE

Between 1960 and 1990, black/white intermarriages increased fourfold (U.S. Census Bureau 1998). Among the reasons for this increase has been the desegregation of the public school system, the work force, and other social settings. Around 1968, American society witnessed the first significant increase in interracial dating. This was the year that blacks entered predominantly white college campuses in comparatively large numbers. Contemporaneous with this event was the sexual and psychological liberation of white women. While white society disapproved of all biracial dating, the strongest taboo was on the black male–white female bond. These bonds became the dominant figures in the increments of biracial dating. The college campus became an ideal laboratory for experiments in interracial affairs. In the university setting, the blacks and whites who dated were peers, with similar educational backgrounds, interests, and values. Young white women, who were not as racist as their parents, were liberated from parental and community control. Their student cohorts were more accepting of or indifferent to

their dating across racial lines. Those changes in interracial dating practices coincided with the civil rights movement and a greater white acceptance of blacks as racial equals.

In the 1970s through 1990s, integration of work settings, neighborhoods, schools, and other public settings has meant that blacks and whites interact much more as equals than in the past. According to a Gallup poll (1997), a majority of blacks go to school, live, and work in places where the population is at least half white or even predominantly white. Only 15 percent of blacks work with mostly or all blacks and 41 percent of blacks live in a mostly or all-black neighborhood. Therefore, it is not surprising that with increasing social interaction there would also be an increasing number of interracial unions.

In addition to these systemic changes, there has been a major change in public attitudes toward biracial couples. According to a Gallup poll (1997), a majority of blacks and whites under the age of 50 say they accept and approve of interracial unions between blacks and whites. Of all the different race-related trends, this change in attitude is the most significant. In 1958, only 4 percent of white Americans approved of marriages between blacks and whites; in 1997, 61 percent approved. However, negative attitudes toward black/white intermarriages still persist. About a quarter of blacks and about 40 percent of whites say they disapprove of interracial marriage. Much of this can be attributed to how different generations view interracial marriages, as well as regional differences. Younger people approve of such marriages, while older black and white Americans are less likely to approve. According to Wilson and Jacobson (1995), age and education are strong predictors of those who are accepting of black/white intermarriages. In their study, they found younger, educated cohorts to be more accepting of such unions, compared to older, less educated cohorts. Moreover, acceptance of such marriages is much lower in certain regions of the United States, such as the South (Gallup Organization 1997). Although these changes in attitudes toward intermarriage seem positive, this poll result could be misleading. Many people tend to give the liberal answer they think is proper or expected when asked about controversial issues such as interracial marriage. However, when confronted with the issue on a very personal level, their response may be much different.

In the past, white families in particular frequently refused to have anything to do with children who entered into interracial marriages (Golden 1954; Porterfield 1982; Spickard 1989). According to Rosenblatt and colleagues (1995), white families compared to black families were most often in opposition. Opposition by white family members was most often based in racist assumptions and stereotypes, but also based in concern about the racism that the couple would face from society at large. Moreover, white families were concerned that marrying interracially meant a poor economic future. Other concerns raised by white families included issues of safety and well-being, as well as the issue of raising a biracial child. The authors found that there was less opposition in black families. Close family members might have been militantly against the marriage, but mothers in black families played a key role in providing acceptance of the interracial marriage. On the other hand, in white families, fathers were the key person in providing acceptance. In both black and white families, families were particularly concerned about their daughters’ marrying interracially. Rosenblatt and colleagues (1995) explain that ‘‘for white families, the roots may include the racism of a dominant group and fear of loss in status. For black families, the roots may include the fear and pain of being connected with the oppressor’’ (p. 69). St. Jean (1998) discusses how black males in families may be more ambivalent about such unions. In previous studies, black women more than black men had tended to disapprove of such intermarriages (Paset and Taylor 1991); however, St. Jean (1998) found quite the opposite. She found that black men had a more difficult time accepting such marriages.

Although many black/white couples are drawn together because of nonracial factors, such as common interests and personal attraction (Lewis et al. 1997), race remains a major factor in their interactions with family, friends, and society at large. Given the persistence of racism, many interracial marriages face rough going. Based on her qualitative research findings, St. Jean (1998) found that although for the ‘‘couples the salience of color seems to diminish after marriage, race consciousness does not diminish. In their everyday lives, they are reminded by Blacks, Whites, relatives and nonrelatives of the inappropriate nature of their association’’ (St. Jean, p. 12). It is a fact that the

scars of nearly 400 years of the worst human bondage known are not healed, and disapproval by many black and white people of interracial love affairs is one of the wounds.

PAST AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS IN ASIAN

AMERICAN INTERMARRIAGES

Since 1990, fueled by immigration from Asia, the Asian and Pacific Islander population has grown at a rate of 4.5 percent per year (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1995). By the year 2000, this population had reached 12.1 million. As this group increases in size, intermarriage will probably occur more frequently (Lee and Fernandez 1998). According to Gordon (1964), the acculturation to American beliefs and values by new immigrants has meant that intermarriage would follow and is an important sign of the assimilation process. Hwang and colleagues (1997) report that Asian Americans with high levels of acculturation and structural assimilation have a high incidence of intermarriage: ‘‘Asian Americans who speak fluent English and who have lived longer in the US were found to have a higher tendency to marry persons from different racial and ethnic groups’’ (p. 770).

Despite the increase in population growth, the intermarriage rate for Asian Americans has declined overall. However, there are several explanations that account for these changes. According to Lee and Fernandez (1998), Asian-American outmarriage from 1980 to 1990 declined significantly from 25 percent to 15 percent based on their analysis of the 5 percent Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) of the 1990 U.S. census. They note that intermarriage levels dropped for Koreans, Filipinos, and Vietnamese. While outmarriage rates among American-born Asians increased, they declined for those foreign-born. They also note that Asian-American women were more likely to outmarry than men and that outmarriage was more common among Japanese Americans, Filipinos, Chinese, and Asian Indians. Lee and Fernandez (1998) further suggest that even though the AsianAmerican outmarriage rate overall has fallen, Asian interethnic marriages, made up of partners from two Asian ethnicities, has increased from 11 to 21 percent.

According to Shinagawa and Pang (1996), these marriage patterns can be explained through a

sociohistorical framework. They define five different historical cohorts: Pre–World War II and World War II (prior to 1946), post–World War II (1946– 1962), the civil rights era (1963–1974), the post1960s (1975–1981) and the Vincent Chin cohorts (1982–1990). Because the pre–World War II and World War II cohort experienced antimiscegenation laws, they intermarried with other nonwhites. Those in the post–World War II cohort lived in an era when antimiscegenation laws were struck down and Asian immigrants could now become citizens. At the same time, American soldiers fighting wars in Asia brought back Asian wives. The civil rights era cohort experienced radical changes in terms of race. Racial groups, no longer segregated from each other, were interacting more, and laws were enacted to bar racist discrimination. Asians could now intermarry with whites, and this era saw an increasing number of Asian women marrying white men. The post-1960s cohort experienced the beginning politicization of the Asian-American community. However, intermarriages were still mostly between whites and Asians. Major changes started to happen in the Vincent Chin cohort. In 1982, Vincent Chin, a Chinese American autoworker in Detroit, was beaten to death by two whites who mistakenly identified him as a Japanese American, angering the Asian-American community and fueling community mobilization and politicization. The murder, which became symbolic of anti-Asian hate crimes and discrimination, brought diverse Asian communities together to eradicate discrimination against Asians and bring justice to Vincent Chin’s family (Espiritu 1992). This era was defined by an emerging increasingly coalesced Asian-Ameri- can community as well as by a growth of the Asian Pacific American population. According to Shinagawa and Pang (1996), these dramatic developments contributed to the growth of interethnic Asian marriages.

Shinagawa and Pang (1996) hypothesize six major reasons why pan-ethnic intermarriages and pan-ethnicity among Asian Americans are on the ascent: (1) the growth of the Asian-American population; (2) the growth of personal and social networks due to these population increases; (3) the growth in the number of educated, middle-class Asian Americans; (4) the acculturation of Asian Americans; (5) shared racial identity; and (6) most importantly, the growing racial consciousness

among Asian Americans. According to Espiritu (1992), the construction of pan-Asian ethnicity arose out of a need for political strength and power. Shinagawa and Pang (1996) stress the importance of a pan-Asian ethnic consciousness that has shaped not only political but also marital patterns: ‘‘Deindustrialization, white flight, increased economic competition, anti-immigrant sentiments, hate violence against Asians, the growing sense of despair and hopelessness in the inner cities, and interracial conflicts not only between Whites and Asian Americans but also between racial minority groups all signify racial consciousness by Asian Americans’’ ( p. 144).

TRENDS IN INTERFAITH INTERMARRIAGE

Although interracial marriages have increased, interfaith marriages are much more commonplace. Intermarriage between white ethnics is quite the norm (Lieberson and Waters 1988). Marriages between members of different faiths also happens much more frequently and seems to carry less stigma than interracial coupling. In fact during 1990, 52 percent of Jews were married to nonJews, while Protestant/Catholic intermarriages have increased significantly (Kalmijn 1991). According to Kalmijn (1991), the increasing importance of similar educational levels in spouse selection and the declining importance of religious differences explains the increase in Protestant/Catholic intermarriages. Using data from the 1987–1988 National Survey of Families and Households, Lehrer (1998) also suggests that intermarriages between Protestants and Catholics have increased steadily. She identifies key variables that play a role in the decision to intermarry. She reports that those with higher levels of education are more likely to intermarry than those with lower levels of education. She also discusses how a premarital pregnancy will increase the likelihood of an intermarriage. Those who are strongly committed to their faith are least likely to intermarry. Despite these increases, Lehrer and Chiswick (1993) report that interfaith marriages are more likely to end in divorce, attributing these high divorce rates to the different religions of the couple. However, they also suggest that conversion by one spouse to the faith of the other produces less conflict and a more harmonious relationship.

FACTORS IN INTERMARRIAGES

Although the increasing trend toward intermarriage across ethnicity, religion, and race can be attributed to the increasing interaction between diverse individuals and to the elimination of institutional barriers, there are also other sociological, demographic, and psychological factors at work. According to psychotherapist Joel Crohn (1995), the decision to intermarry is not based on one single element—there may be many psychological influences operating. From his work as a therapist, he identifies four reasons that individuals from different religious, cultural, or ethnic backgrounds may be attracted to each other. First, stereotypes about a particular group may attract persons to each other; for example, black men are masculine, Jewish men are good providers, and Asian women are sexy.

Second, Crohn (1995) suggests that outmarriage can also be due to a partner’s struggle with his or her identity. Those who outmarry may find members of the opposite sex from their ethnic, racial, or religious group unappealing and unattractive. Marriage can then be the arena in which individuals deal with their ambivalent attitudes toward their racial, ethnic, or religious identity: ‘‘Marriage to an outsider represents the ultimate strategy in trying to erase the stigma of a minority identity’’ (Crohn 1995, p. 52). At the same time, minority groups may outmarry into the dominant group to gain acceptance by that group. According to Pang (1997), Asian-American women who choose relationships with white men ‘‘participate in a language of assimilation that minimizes essential core parts of their self’’ (Pang 1997, p. 295). She found that Asian-American women who outmarry do not place importance on their race or culture and rather take on the identity of their white husband. According to Pang (1997), assimilation and incorporation into white society for these Asian-Ameri- can women was of importance.

Third, Crohn (1995) suggests that whites may feel like they lack a particular cultural tradition and thus be attracted to a partner with a certain cultural and ethnic distinctiveness. Crohn further suggests that intermarriage is also a way for adult children to separate themselves from their family emotionally and/or physically. In fact, other studies have documented that those who chose to intermarry were more rebellious and had huge