The Ethnic Myth: Race, Ethnicity, and Class in America

by Stephen Steinberg, Eric William Lott (Introduction)

You hold in your hand a dangerous book. Because it rejects as it clarifies most of the current wisdom on race, ethnicity, and immigration in the United States, The Ethnic Myth has the force of a scholarly bomb. --from the Introduction by Eric William Lott

In this classic work, sociologist Stephen Steinberg rejects the prevailing view that cultural values and ethnic traits are the primary determinants of the economic destiny of racial and ethnic groups in America. He argues that locality, class conflict, selective migration, and other historical and economic factors play a far larger role not only in producing inequalities but in maintaining them as well, thus providing an insightful explanation into why some groups are successful in their pursuit of the American dream and others are not.

Genres: Sociology, Nonfiction, Race, History, American History, Politics, The United States Of America

336 pages, Paperback

First published March 1, 1981

Reviews

[Hedy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although the author makes a case that the data supports the “ethnic myth,” I cannot wholesale buy that argument. Data alone tells us nothing. That is why we use analysis - to tell a story about the data. The author argues that he has “hard data,” but what he neglects to understand is the fact that the conclusion he draws from the data may not be the same as the conclusion of another individual.

The author argues, convincingly so, that certain ethnic groups have been successful in this country not because of their cultural values or similar traits, but because the timing of their arrival into the U.S. was able to fill an equivalent void in the economy. I could be convinced that timing is part of the equation of success, but I do not believe that it is all due to this timing. Unfortunately, it is much more difficult if not impossible at a grand scale to gather sufficient objective data on the affect of culture, but I do not think that because of this that factor should be dismissed as an important factor to success. As the title of the book states, this is the “ethnic myth,” that culture is not a variable to be factored into success.

What is more difficult to grapple with is the racial issue, which again has its own unique set of problems when trying to explain the continued poverty that is overwhelmingly biased. I do believe that the author makes some good and important points about the bad solutions that the government has attempted to implement. Instead of seeking solutions that will create a strong economy and jobs, the government seeks more “social” and “cultural” solutions, which clearly do not work. Something as seemingly simple as providing public education opportunities to those in large cities that are equivalent to those in suburbia is critical to success. To add to this challenge, in this age higher education has become essential as well as job training that focus on technical skills. There is a lack of balance in opportunity and even hope for populations in large city public schools.

The author delves into whether the U.S. is a country based on pluralism or is it a melting pot. This raised numerous questions for me as a first generation American. Pluralism promotes the ethnic identity, and has become more important for some individuals as we loose hold of our various ethnic histories, but is it even possible to retain this history if you live in your native country? Doesn’t modernization make mute the cultural identities of us all no matter where we live? Is assimilation, essentially a melting pot a bad idea? Isn’t it inevitable that the ethnicity with which someone arrives in this country becomes watered down and difficult to maintain, and that we acclimate to our new home’s culture?

I agree with the author that pluralism by its very nature presents a challenge to democracy. Allowing a particular ethnic or other type of group to exclude individuals who are different seems to smack democracy right in its face. The author states it this way:

“[O]ur society in principle sanctions the right of ethnic groups to main their separate cultures and communities, but it also guarantees individuals freedoms and specifically proscribes various forms of discrimination. The problem is that these two sets of rights are often in conflict. This is because ethnic groups in a position of social and economic advantage, when exercising their prerogatives of associating with their own ethnic kind, deprive outsiders of rights and opportunities protected by democratic norms.” (page 258)

Unfortunately many ethnic groups want to break down barriers before them to ascend to an improved situation only to erect those same walls behind them to protect their group when their situation improves. The only way to have a true pluralistic society that exhibits stability is for all groups to have parity in that society by exercising a no barriers way to every day life. Unfortunately and in my opinion, this is not realistic here in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world.

The author almost had me convinced of his objectivity in his analysis until I read his epilogue. The Willi Horton example he used from a past presidential election demonstrated a clear bias in his political ideals. I had hoped that the author would be more politically neutral.

I think that this book is a good academic read that should challenge the status quo way of viewing the importance of different races, ethnicities and cultures. The author raises many relevant and important points. However, as the theories presented by the author are considered, it is important to recognize the numerous changes in the U.S. over the past two decades that include but are not limited to national security, terrorism, immigration policies, laws and protections, etc. If the idea is to get your philosophical wheels churning, then the book is a success.

[Nancy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Steinberg seeks to expunge popular, reductionist assumptions that emphasizes cultural explanations related to a group’s ethnicity and race to explain the successes and failures of such groups. He instead argues that we must first determine the sociohistorical contexts which allowed for upward mobility (in the case of Jews, Asians, or other noteworthy groups) or years of socioeconomic stagnation (blacks, Hispanics, Latinos). We’ve all heard these stereotypes before. Jews value education; that’s why they’re so successful. Blacks are lazy; that’s why they’re so unsuccessful.

Let me be clear, though. Steinberg does not dispute that Jewish people and Asians value education, but he insists that their “middle-class values” would not have bore fruit if other factors like economic power and opportunity weren’t there, too. Obtainment of quality education and upward mobility cannot happen if the circumstances aren’t right.

Ascribing one group’s achievements to their ethnic background and culture is an act of oversimplification. It overlooks pre-existing conditions that may have given the group a leg up. Furthermore, when we draw on the deficiencies produced in other racial groups, we are in effect turning a blind eye to the inequitable structures these individuals suffer through. Such thoughts are ultimately harmful because we insist that the least successful groups need to take matters into their own hands and aspire to work harder and be “better” when we could really be changing the institutions that oppress these individuals. Of course, these pursuits would be costly, but America is bound to suffer more if we continue to perpetuate class inequality and pit racial groups against each other.

[Jessica Grittner · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you're interested in American history, this book is a must-read. It looks at racism and the development of the "ethnic myth" (e.g. that Jewish people are good with money or Asian people are pressured to do well in school). It demonstrates how patterns of immigration have shaped the trajectories of the various ethnicities. My favorite part was when he talks about the Irish immigrants, how the potato famine forced young women to immigrate rather than wait for a husband in Ireland – forcing them into indentured servantry in the households of America.

[Jaye · Rating 4 out of 5]

While by no means a perfect book, this was engaging, informative, and had some parts that gave me an entire new perspective on certain ethnic and racial conflicts and constructs. I will now be reading more sociology books because they are just really interesting. Standout chapters for me include Chapter 7, The Reconstruction of Black Servitude after the Civil War, which touched on a fascinating era of history that I haven't been taught much in the american public education system, as well as Chapter 9, The 'Jewish Problem' in Higher Education, which clarified the history of anti-semitism in the united states upper class.

[blakely june · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is creating in debunking the ethnic argument in the determination of race in the rates of assimilation into American society. Although there are strong critiques of the book by other authors and I cannot wholeheartedly agree with everything said in this book based on critiques, I highly recommend it to understand race relations and racial formation in the United States.

[Noelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

I generally liked this book. However, in his discussion of crime, I thought Steinberg missed an opportunity to take his argument further.

He notes that criminal behavior can be viewed as a product of economic inequalities, rather than an effect of cultural values. Here, I wish he has connected this idea to the ways that crime has been conceptualized in relation to the economically disadvantaged. He seems to take criminal law for granted, rather than heeding his own advice and placing it within this same historical context of ethnic relations.

Steinberg might have drawn from Quinney's "Social Reality of Crime" (1970) or later scholars -- addressing the ways that crime was created by those granted political authority, whereby people in society have relative probabilities of engaging in behavior likely to be defined as criminal.

I felt this inclusion would have strengthened Steinberg's assertion that criminal *behaviors)* are a product of economic conditions, as crime itself may also be considered a socially constructed product of the economic structure.

[Peter Thorn · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this book fascinating, and as such I have also found that it has informed a lot of the beliefs about society and perception that I have held since. This book is a must read for sociologists and political scientists.

[Caracoro · Rating 4 out of 5]

added it

[Ying · Rating 4 out of 5]

All the sociohistorical context you need

[Moshe Hollander · Rating 4 out of 5]

A decent read which offers up a new way of looking at contemporary (but not really) issues. Like most works of social science, to be read with an open, yet critical mind.