Abstract
The recent growth of the Latino population in the South is adding a layer of complexity to a region historically characterized by a black/white color line. Richmond, Virginia, a midsize southern city with no history of Latino settlement prior to 1970, has experienced a 156 percent increase in the Latino population between 1990 and 2000 (U.S. Census). In Latinos in Dixie, Debra J. Schleef and H.B. Cavalcanti use Richmond as a case study to examine patterns of Latino socioeconomic incorporation in the South. Using the theoretical concept of segmented assimilation, originating from the work of Alejandro Portes and Min Zhou, the authors question which of the three paths outlined by the theory applies to Richmond’s Latinos: adoption of “the values of the dominant white middle class;” a trajectory of downward mobility into Richmond’s urban underclass; or a route of selective acculturation “whereby the immigrant community can preserve its culture and values of origin while becoming economically integrated into the U.S. system” (p. 18). The authors examine a number of indicators of incorporation, including language, the prevalence of “ethnic customs,” ethnic identification, religiosity, family dynamics and political and civic participation. Schleef and Cavalcanti conducted ethnographic research among community organizations but the bulk of their data is derived from a cross-sectional survey of over 300 Latinos, 174 of whom were obtained through a probability sample of 1,100 residents with Latino surnames. The remaining respondents were referred through churches, Latino businesses and snowball sampling.
The first three chapters paint an in-depth portrait of Richmond’s Latinos. The prevailing stereotype in Dixie is that Latinos are overwhelmingly poor and low-wage workers; however, Schleef and Cavalcanti’s analysis of U.S Census data reveals that Richmond’s Latinos have significantly higher levels of education and household income and are more likely to be employed in high-status occupations than U.S. Latinos in general. Their sample reflects these trends, as 40 percent hold a college degree or higher (compared to 13 percent of Latinos and 31 percent of whites nationally) and a third of their respondents make over $75,000 a year. Despite these markers of affluence, the authors argue that Richmond’s Latinos are bifurcated along class lines, as 56 percent of their sample are employed in white-collar occupations while just under half labor in working-class jobs. Professional Latinos comprised the first wave of migrants to the city, whereas low-income workers are the most recent arrivals.
Richmond’s Latinos are also diverse in national origin. One-quarter of their sample is Mexican, 20 percent are Puerto Rican, 10 percent are Cuban and the remaining respondents are from South and Central American countries. Nearly 70 percent are immigrants, 20 percent are second generation (the children of immigrants) and 10 percent are third generation (the grandchildren of immigrants). Regardless of class status, national origin or generation, the majority of Latinos migrate to Richmond for economic opportunities. Only one-third of their sample arrive from traditional immigrant gateway regions, 20 percent migrate directly from their country of origin and the remaining half journey from other non-traditional areas in the South, Midwest and Northeast. Finally, only 4 percent of Schleef and Cavalcanti’s respondents live or work in black neighborhoods and few report close social ties to African Americans.
Schleef and Cavalcanti’s main argument is that class status (measured through income in one chapter and occupation in another) determines which pathway of assimilation Richmond’s Latinos follow. For example, Latinos with higher incomes are more likely to speak English, consume English language media, associate primarily with whites, and are less likely to cook ethnic foods; thus, Latinos with higher incomes have “greater familiarity with the dominant culture” (p. 65). These patterns hold when Schleef and Cavalcanti examine differences between those employed in white collar and working-class occupations leading the authors to conclude that some affluent Latinos follow a linear pathway of assimilation into the white middle class. But not all professional Latinos incorporate directly into the white middle class—some follow a pathway of selective acculturation. Half of their white-collar respondents ethnically identify as Hispanic and some actively leverage their ethnic background, which involves speaking Spanish and cultivating Latino social networks and clients through Latino business associations, as a strategy to achieve occupational mobility, demonstrating that “Richmond’s Latinos can achieve upward mobility without sacrificing cultural ties and values” (p. 115). Do these phenomena portend selective acculturation or are Richmond’s Latinos constructing a minority culture of mobility?
Kathryn Neckerman, Prudence Carter, Jennifer Lee and others argue that there is an additional pathway of assimilation into the middle class not accounted for by segmented assimilation theory, where upwardly mobile immigrants retain an ethnic identification and incorporate into a distinct minority middle-class community, rather than the white middle class. Selective acculturation is beneficial when immigrants and their children are in the early stages of incorporation and remain in low-income ethnic communities, as demonstrated by Min Zhou and Carl Bankston in their classic study of Vietnamese youth (Growing Up American: How Vietnamese Children Adapt to Life in the United States, 1999), but the minority culture of mobility becomes pronounced as upwardly mobile Latinos leave ethnic communities, navigate white business milieus and establish ethnic professional associations. Schleef and Cavalcanti’s book lacks a nuanced analysis of the specific indicators, such as national-origin, generation, length of time in the United States, or class background (growing up in low-income or in middle-class households), that are correlated with who is likely to follow these two different routes into the middle class.
Finally, the authors find that Richmond’s elite Latinos do not possess a sense of linked-fate with working-class coethnics. Social class is what unites Latinos, not ethnicity, which means that the civic and political agendas of the affluent do not concentrate on promoting the mobility of their working class counterparts. So what pathway of assimilation do Richmond’s working class Latinos follow? The authors find that the working class is less socially and economically incorporated, but they only link the three pathways delineated by segmented assimilation theory to this segment by emphasizing, notably, that there is little evidence of downward assimilation into a minority underclass culture, although some migrated to Richmond from urban areas specifically to escape this outcome for their children.
Overall, Schleef and Cavalcanti make a significant scholarly contribution to studies of immigrant incorporation by demonstrating the class variation within the Latino population, thereby helping to challenge the idea that Latinos are a monolithic ethnic group overwhelmingly headed for downward mobility. Moreover, they confirm that today’s new immigrants need not become white to assimilate into the middle class. As Latinos continue to remake the South, their detailed and well-written analysis of Latinos in Richmond lays a critical foundation for the further investigation of the distinct incorporation trajectories of Latinos in Dixie.