Critical Reflection #3

Sociology Critical ref1ection #3

Question #2
Hartmann & Gerteis (2005) map four main theoretical models of diversity in the U.S. social sphere. What model do you support? Provide an example of how this model is best suited to either Canada or the United States.

1. Assimilationism: is the break down of certain groups of people, whether it is ethnic or racial and bring them together into one larger assimilated group. “It supports and promotes the tying together of ethnic minorities into the dominant culture” (Akiner, 1997). Assimilation seeks to take away differences within people and groups themselves and try to form everyone as one entity. Assimilation usually involves a “gradual change and takes place in varying degrees” (Brimelow, 1995). A famous model that deals with assimilation is the “melting pot” phenomenon. “The melting pot is essentially a visual image of people being stirred into a giant pot, melting there previous beliefs and knowledge away and leaving them with all similar values. This which explains the concept of assimilation very well” (Akiner, 1997).

2. Cosmopolitanism: Is the ideology that all kinds of “human ethnic groups belong to a single community based on a shared morality while still being cautious about social unity with others” (Gordon, 2001). In order to include all nations or groups a cosmopolitan community should include “several aspects of people’s culture such as individual morality, shared economic relationship, and a shared political structure” (Gordon, 2001). The cosmopolitan community is one in which individuals from different places form relationships of mutual respect for one an other. In general “you’re free to choose your place in the “mosaic,” with no strong vision for community”(Laroux, 2010 slides)

3. Fragmented Pluralism: This concept is very close to the opposite of assimilation. This concept “enforces groups rather than have everyone forced into the same beliefs or attitudes” (Hunington, 2004). The whole social concept of the nation or nation state is dissolved into collective units. Most of the focus is put on holding the boundaries with in the group instead of worrying about the group as a whole.

4. Interactive pluralism: Is a concept where the main focus is having the different groups interacting with one another producing a new whole or group by themselves. This way the “group is not forced and the cohesion between them is likely favorable” (Wong, 2008). “This importance placed is the interaction between groups not within them because once this interaction is made then new larger group interaction will happen, which lead to new understandings of others” (Wong, 2008). The new social ties and relationships that are made will make the entity stronger as it will have more knowledge than before.

The model that I support is Interactive pluralism because it seems like it would work the best in real life situations. In all aspects of the real world there are groups of people who feel more comfortable or get along better together. Whether it is in the work place, in our family life, or in some kind of social network, it is reality. Here is a business example to interactive pluralism. The groups that we associate our selves with in the work place for example stick together from day to day and support each because we are essentially a team working for a common goal. Whether there is a strong interaction or not within this team, the boundary is set in our minds that we are one. One of the key aspects of a team is to interact with other teams in order to better ourselves and our company’s goal. Interaction with other businesses teaches us aspects and ways in which we may not have known or understood previously. This interaction betters our chances to prosper in the business world, by being able to pick and choose good ideas from a large source of them, which in turn will make us stronger as a team and company.

I think that this model is best suited for Canada because it does not force anyone to be someone who they don’t want to be as assimilation does but putting everyone is a “melting pot”. Interactive pluralism intern gives people a chance to interact with others in many different environments to better them selves and the different groups around them. This helps a society such as Canada’s because we are very multicultural and intern have a lot of different groups in our society. Whether these groups be religious, ethnic, ages, gender, business, school ect.. We can learn a lot by engaging in activities with them within our own groups. This way we can learn from them as they learn form us. In our Canadian setting I believe that we are doing this but it should be embraced more for the reason that we have so much to learn as people and as a country.

Bibliography:

- Akiner, Shirin 1997 "Melting-pot - salad bowl - cauldron? Manipulation and

mobilisation of ethnic and religious identities in Central Asia", Ethnic and Racial

Studies.

- Brimelow, Peter 1995 Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration

Disaster (New York, NY: Random House).

- Gordon, Milton 2001 Assimilation in American Life: the Role of Race, Religion and

National Origins (New York, NY: Oxford University Press).

- Huntington, S. P. 2004. Who Are We?: The Challenges to America’s National Identity. New York, Simon and Schuster

- Wong, Loyd 2008 Multiculturalism and ethnic pluralism in sociology: an analysis of the fragmentation position discourse