Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Assimilation and ethnicity: Adaptation patterns and ethnic identity of Armenian -Americans in central California
(USC Thesis Other)
Assimilation and ethnicity: Adaptation patterns and ethnic identity of Armenian -Americans in central California
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UM I a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographicalty in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ASSIMILATION AND ETHNICITY: ADAPTATION PATTERNS AND ETHNIC IDENTITY OF ARMENIAN-AMERICANS IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA by Matthew Ari Jendian A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (SOCIOLOGY) August 2001 Copyright 2001 Matthew Ari Jendian Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UM I Number: 3054756 Copyright 2001 by Jendian, Matthew Ari All rights reserved. _____ ___ (g > UMI UMI Microform 3054756 Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA The Graduate School U niversity Park LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089-1695 This dissertation, w ritten b y Matthew A . Jendian Under the direction o f D issertation Committee, and approved b y a ll its members, has been presented to and accepted b y The Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent o f requirements for th e degree o f DOCTOR OFPHILOSOFHY Dean o f Graduate Studies Date August 7. 2001________ DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEDICATION To the memory of my cousin and friend, David Avedis Atamian, who always pushed me to do my best, physically and mentally, and to my wife, Pamela Jendian who continues to do so. Her love and patience has made it all possible. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation is a result of many years of study, research, guidance, and reflection on the issues of assimilation and ethnicity as they pertain to Armenian- Americans. First and most importantly, I would like to thank the respondents, the 294 men and women of Armenian descent who participated in the study. Without their diligence in completing the very long and detailed questionnaire and returning it to me, this analysis would not have been possible and this dissertation would not have been written. Your responses have been very insightful and led to new ways of conceiving the processes of assimilation and ethnicity. Shnorhagalem tzez polorit! The genesis of this dissertation is a race and ethnicity seminar course (S o c lll) I took in fall 1989 as an undergraduate at California State University, Fresno. Professor John Tinker, my undergraduate advisor, taught the course. It was in that class I was introduced to the work of Dr. Richard Alba, particularly Italian Americans: Into the Twilight o f Ethnicity (1985), and my research interests were sparked. Dr. Tinker also referred to his research on intermarriage of Japanese- Americans and encouraged me to embark on a similar research project of my own. Soon after, I found myself digging through marriage licenses at the Fresno County Hall of Records, and I produced my first empirical paper from data I had collected myself, “Intermarriage and Ethnic Boundaries of Armenian-Americans in Central California.” This paper was presented at the 18th Annual Western Anthropological/Sociological Undergraduate Research Conference at Santa Clara iii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. University in April 1991. Dr. Tinker and I drove up together, and, if I recall correctly, he was the moderator of the session. This was my first formal introduction to professional academic life, and I loved it; I wanted to further my education. Thanks for all your guidance, John. I was privileged to be admitted to the Ph.D. program in Sociology at the University of Southern California in the fall of 1991. There I met some fine individuals. I appreciate the feedback and lively discussions with my first and second year apartment-mate, Vik Dhawan, who to this day remains a good friend and advisor/consultant. His proofreading was helpful on a number of occasions during our common pursuit of the advanced degree in sociology. I always value the perspective that he brings to things. Upon my admission to the graduate program, I was assigned as an advisee of Professor Ed Ransford, and, as many others can attest, he is a master of advising— clear, caring, and always considerate of the person he is advising. It was not until the latter part of my degree program that I got to know him better. I had the opportunity to take a class that was team taught by him and Professor Connie Ahrons on Gender and Ethnicity and Therapy. I sincerely appreciate all of the time he has devoted to reviewing my written work (even by email!), assisting me in devising a strategy for analyzing my data, and providing valuable and clear feedback on drafts of my dissertation. In addition, I thank him for his patience and understanding of my situation (i.e., completing the project while teaching and raising a family)—this has been a long haul. He closed each email response with “Straight ahead!” and that iv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. phrase served as a motivator for me and encouraged me to do my best. He is a true mentor in every sense of the word, and I am glad to have had him as chair of my dissertation committee. Thank you, Ed. My second semester in the graduate program, I was fortunate to become affiliated with The Longitudinal Study of Generations as a research assistant. I worked directly under the project coordinator. Dr. Roseann Giarrusso, and over the next two years she became my research mentor and a good friend. We collaborated on several papers together, including one that was published. Her expertise in survey construction, research design, sampling, increasing response rates, etc. was of enormous benefit to this dissertation project. She was a valuable member of my dissertation committee, and I appreciate her concern, care, and advice over the years. She has always had my best interests in mind. Thanks, Roseann, for always making an ear available to me. I want to also thank the third and final member of my dissertation committee, Professor Richard Hrair Dekmejian (Political Science), for agreeing to be the “outside” member. His knowledge of the Armenian-American community, as well as the Jewish and Islamic communities in America, was of particular benefit to this project. It also helped that he was very familiar with sociological concepts and theories and my own family history. He could understand the environment in which I would be writing the dissertation and the demands that would be placed on me as the son of an active Armenian-American community member. Hrair emphasized to me the importance of having the ability to just say “no.” I thank him for that advice V Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. because, although I learned the lesson a little late, it was ultimately that ability that afforded me the time to complete my dissertation. Pilot studies for the eventual dissertation were taken on as projects for different graduate classes. Professor Eun Mee Kim, my methods instructor, provided extremely helpful feedback on my research involving interviews of intermarried and intramarried Armenian-Americans. Professors Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotello and Elaine Bell Kaplan, both members of my guidance committee for the Empirical Paper, provided valuable suggestions regarding my interview research with the non- Armenian spouses. Both also spent much time reviewing my research on Armenian- American ethnicity and broadened my perspective about ethnicity in the United States and particularly qualitative research methodology and design. Their comments were instrumental in helping me produce a more comprehensive paper, “A Study of Intermarriage among Armenian-Americans in Central California,” submitted to the department in 1993 as my Empirical Paper. I am intellectually indebted to Professor Anny Bakalian for her pioneering research on Armenian-Americans in the New York/New Jersey area. Ever since Hratch Tchilingirian introduced me to her dissertation (1989) and book, Armenian- Americans: From Being to Feeling Armenian (1993), I have relied upon her as a model for my own work. Having since been personally introduced, we have become friends and share a love for sociology and our Armenian heritage. Her willingness to help, personal comments, and guidance on various issues are appreciated. vi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Thanks to some other key individuals (in alphabetical order): Professor Vem Bengtson, project director of The Longitudinal Study of Generations at the University of Southern California, for his mentoring and modeling of academic professionalism. The late Professor Carlfred Broderick, a member of my guidance committee for my Empirical Paper, for his masterful pedagogical style, tremendous knowledge, and caring feedback and encouragement. Eileen Coleman, administrative assistant for the Department of Sociology at California State University, for everything that she does! Barlow Der Mugrdechian, instructor of Armenian Studies at California State University, Fresno, for his feedback on chapter three: Armenian history and culture. Professor Bob Fischer of California State University, Fresno and his wife Carol, for their care and consideration for my future in checking up on my progress from time to time. Bob also reviewed several drafts of my advance letter and survey. It was his undergraduate theory class that provided me with a solid foundation for sociological theory in graduate school. Frances Fitzgerald, then Student Services Coordinator at the University of Southern California, for her advising regarding deadlines, procedures, paperwork, etc. Dr. Ellen Gruenbaum, Dean of the College of Social Science at California State University, Fresno, and Dr. Jeronima Echeverria, then Assistant Dean of the College (now Associate Provost), for their support of my completion of this dissertation project. vii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dr. Ara Hairabedian, Professor Emeritus at California State University, Fresno, for his moral support. Professor Beth Hartung, my office-mate at California State University, Fresno until 2000-2001 when she became department chair, for her support and encouragement over the years and for teaching with academic rigor. It was her social stratification class (Socl51) that best prepared me for success in my graduate studies. Professor Debbie Helsel, my current office-mate at California State University, Fresno, for reviewing the first draft of my complete dissertation and providing comments and suggestions that served as a confidence booster. Professor Isabel Kaprielian (History) of California State University, Fresno, for her encouragement and feedback on the advance/cover letters and questionnaire. Professor Dickran Kouyoumjian, the Haig and Isabel Berberian Endowed Chair of Armenian Studies at California State University, Fresno, for his encouragement and guidance over the years. Hector Lopez and Pat Ledesma, former students of mine at California State University, Fresno, for their valuable assistance in entering the data from the 294 completed surveys (for Pat, the thanks are doubled because she also assisted me the second time around after the data were deleted from the university server). I valued their objectivity and professionalism in providing me with feedback regarding coding decisions, etc. I hope the process was helpful in some way to them, as I appreciated our conversations about ethnicity, questionnaire construction, and methodology. viii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Professor A1 McLeod, my pedagogical and intellectual mentor, for his prophecy during my undergraduate years at California State University, Fresno that I would someday be teaching for the department, and for his out-of-the-box thinking and feedback on the early drafts of my First few chapters. Kevin McNeill and Tim Griswold from Printing Servi CvS u t C u h f C i u i u ^ t e University, Fresno for their assistance in getting the surveys and envelopes to look so professional. Professor Ed Nelson, for allowing me access to the Social Science Research Lab facilities at California State University, Fresno, and supporting the purchase of the Haines Criss-Cross CD-ROM Public Directory of the Central San Joaquin Valley. Professor Elizabeth Nelson, then chair of the Sociology Department at California State University, Fresno, for her support and mentoring and review of the survey and an early draft of my first two chapters. Lars Newlander, Information Technology Consultant for the College of Social Science at California State University, Fresno, and his assistant, Glen Hunt, for their assistance with the computer technology (including mail merges, MS Access database management, etc.) and for making sure I had access to space on the university server. When all of my data had been entered and then accidentally deleted off the server and the backup tapes, I became disheartened. Lars helped me get back on my feet and showed me how to make sure that would not happen again. To all of my other colleagues at California State University, Fresno, for their support and encouragement. ix Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The financial costs associated with this project were greater than originally anticipated. I appreciate Mr. Nomie Derderian, CPA sharing my dissertation proposal and request for funding with his client, Mrs. Isabel Lion of Fresno, and it is to her that I extend my sincere thanks. Her personal generosity covered the costs of printing the surveys and mailings. Thanks also to the Armenian General Benevolent Union for a grant. Although limited relative to the total cost of the dissertation research, this was the only Armenian organization that responded positively to my appeal for funding assistance. I appreciate their support for this research on the Armenian-American community. Thanks to my friends and family who have also encouraged me along the way and tolerated my many dissertation tales. I appreciate your patience and understanding of my absence at certain events due to working on the dissertation. I am very thankful for and indebted to my immediate and extended families. My cousin-in-law, Laurie Schmidt, provided assistance in re-entering the data and babysat from time to time so that I could concentrate on the dissertation. Both of my sisters-in-law, Aleen Jendian and Suzanne Manoogian, have been very supportive and encouraging throughout the entire process. My brother, Micah, and sister, Megan, have been inspirational. With my brother having recently completed his own Master’s thesis and my sister’s willingness to assist me with the project in any way possible, I knew I would finish. I also appreciate Micah’s sharing of the relevant passages from author William Saroyan that appear in the text. In many ways, certain phases of the dissertation research were family projects. For example, addressing, x Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. stuffing, and sealing envelopes and delivering the packages to be mailed was a family endeavor. Along with me, my wife, Pam, my parents, Allan and Rosemary Jendian, and my wife's parents, Phil and Jackie Manoogian, gathered around the table, and in assembly-line fashion turned out 600 questionnaire packages in no time. I am very appreciative of all that my wife’s parents have done for my immediate family and me. Their acceptance of me as a member of their family means a lot to me. They have shown me understanding, provided instrumental support, and been willing to do whatever is necessary to allow me the time to finish. Being involved in public education themselves, both of them emphasize and value education. Their love has been a source of strength for me. For me, this dissertation, as a merger of academia and my ethnic background, is really a symbol of the coming together of my two parents. I owe a great deal of my educational achievement to my mom who took great care, as an educator herself, to ensure that all three of her children would excel in reading and writing. My earliest memories are of her reading to me, and I thank her for all she has done, both then and now. At some level, I owe my interest and participation in the Armenian Church and community to my father. As an ordained Deacon of the Armenian Church, a member of an Armenian folk music ensemble, and chair, vice-chair, treasurer, or secretary of this or that Armenian community organization, it is no wonder I became involved in the Church and community. My dad’s expertise on the Armenian community of Fresno was particularly helpful, and I appreciate his assistance with various tasks. I thank both my parents for their love and guidance. xi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Finally, again, I want to thank my wife, Pam, for her unending love and patience that have allowed me to complete this dissertation. She and our son, Joshua, have been a source of motivation for me, and I will always remember the sacrifices they both made for me. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii ABSTRACT xxiii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem 5 Genesis of Interest 6 Overview 16 CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY AND DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE 18 Data Collection 18 Sampling Procedures 19 Questionnaire Construction and Mailing 22 Response Rate 25 Biases and Generalizability 27 Analysis Techniques 28 Description of the Sample 29 Comparison of Subsamples 29 The Full Sample 30 Operational Definitions 33 Cultural Assimilation 34 Structural Assimilation 35 Marital Assimilation 37 Identificational Assimilation 38 Overview 39 xiii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER THREE: ARMENIAN HISTORY AND CULTURE 41 Origins and Kingdoms 41 Foreign Domination 42 The Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 43 The Armenian Question 45 Immigration to the United States and the Armenian Genocide 46 Pre-Genocide Immigration to the U.S. 46 World War I and the Genocide 50 I970’s Immigration from the Middle East 54 1980’s and 1990’s Immigration from the former Soviet Republic 54 Worldwide Population and Current Political Situation 55 Armenians in the Central San Joaquin Valley of California 57 The Early Settlers 58 The Shaping of the “Armenian Colony” in Fresno County 59 Prejudice and Discrimination 62 Armenian Culture and Local Social Structure 67 CHAPTER FOUR: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES 72 Ethnicity, Ethnic Group, Ethnic Identity 72 General Dimensions of Ethnicity 76 Views of the Basic Nature of Ethnicity 79 The Primordial View 79 The Political-Economic View 80 The Rational Choice View 81 General Paradigms of Ethnicity 81 Assimilation 81 Anglo Conformity 82 Melting Pot 83 Assimilation Theory in Social Science 88 Cultural Pluralism 89 Symbolic Ethnicity 91 Filling the Gap between Paradigms 96 Ethnic Identity Retention 100 Framing the Current Research 103 Hypotheses and Explorations 109 xiv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER FIVE: DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS: PATTERNS OF CHANGE AND PERSISTENCE 112 Cultural Change and Persistence 112 Structural Change and Persistence 117 Summary 121 CHAPTER SIX: FINDINGS: TESTS OF HYPOTHESES FOR 123 ASSIMILATION AND ETHNICITY Testing Regression Assumptions 125 Cultural Assimilation 127 Structural Assimilation 134 Marital Assimilation 138 Identificational Assimilation 146 Summary 150 CHAPTER SEVEN: THREE FURTHER EXPLORATIONS 153 OF THE CO-EXISTENCE OF ASSIMILATION AND ETHNICITY Ethnic Identity 155 Types of Ethnic Identity 156 Social Identity 156 Personal Identity 157 Collective Identity 158 Fluidity of Ethnic Identity 159 The Social Construction of Ethnic Identity 161 Summarizing the Exploration of Ethnic Identity 166 Ethnicity in Later Generations 167 Cultural Assimilation 167 Structural Assimilation 169 Identificational Assimilation 171 Summarizing the Exploration of Ethnicity in Later Generations 174 XV Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Marital Assimilation 175 Rate of Intermarriage 176 Marital Assimilation and Other Types of Assimilation 177 Marital Assimilation: Cause or Consequence of Assimilation? 179 Impact on Ethnic Group Identification 182 Impact on Ethnic Friendship Structures 184 Impact on Religious Affiliation 185 Impact on Ethnic Community Involvement 186 Acceptance of Intermarriage 188 Reception of Intermarried Couples 188 Attitudes towards Intermarriage 190 Summarizing the Exploration of Marital Assimilation 190 CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 193 Overview 193 Demographic Snapshot 194 Assimilation and Ethnicity 195 Importance of Religious Affiliation 198 Ethnic Identity and Persistence of Ethnicity in Later Generations 200 Intermarriage 201 Implications 203 REFERENCES 208 APPENDIX A The Questionnaire Package 230 Advance Letter 230 Press Release 231 Frequently Asked Questions Information Sheet 232 Cover Letter 233 Questionnaire 234 Survey Sweepstakes Entry Postcard 256 Three-week Follow-up Postcard 257 Notice to Community 258 Five-week Follow-up Postcard 259 APPENDIX B Scatterplot Matrix of Independent Variables and 260 Cultural Assimilation xvi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H APPENDIX I APPENDIX J APPENDIX K APPENDIX L APPENDIX M Scatterplot Matrix of Independent Variables and Structural Assimilation Scatterplot Matrix of Independent Variables and Marital Assimilation Scatterplot Matrix of Independent Variables and Identificational Assimilation Stem-and-Leaf Plot of Studentized Deleted Residuals for Independent Variables with Cultural Assimilation Boxplot of Studentized Deleted Residuals for Independent Variables with Cultural Assimilation Stem-and-Leaf Plot of Studentized Deleted Residuals for Independent Variables with Structural Assimilation Boxplot of Studentized Deleted Residuals for Independent Variables with Structural Assimilation Stem-and-Leaf Plot of Studentized Deleted Residuals for Independent Variables with Marital Assimilation Boxplot of Studentized Deleted Residuals for Independent Variables with Marital Assimilation Histogram of Frequencies for Marital Assimilation Scatterplot of Studentized Residuals versus Predicted Values of Cultural Assimilation Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX N APPENDIX O Scatterplot of Studentized Residuals versus Predicted Values of Structural Assimilation Scatterplot of Studentized Residuals versus Predicted Values of Marital Assimilation Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES 1.0 Intermarriage Rates of Armenian-sumamed Brides and 7 Grooms in Fresno County by Year and Generation, 1930, 1940, I960, 1980, and 1990 2.0 Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables, Full Sample 32 2.1 Reliability Analysis for Cultural Assimilation Scale, 35 Correlation Matrix 2.2 Reliability Analysis for Structural Assimilation Scale, 37 Correlation Matrix 2.3 Reliability Analysis for Identificational Assimilation Scale, 39 Correlation Matrix 3.0 Number of Armenian Immigrants to the United States by 53 Period 4.0 Varieties of Ethnic Identity 97 5.0 Percentages for Indicators of Cultural Assimilation for First, 114 Second, and Fourth Generation Respondents 5.1 Frequenting Armenian Restaurants by Generation 116 5.2 Percentages for Indicators of Structural Assimilation for 117 First, Second, and Fourth Generation Respondents 5.3 Reliability Analysis for Famiiism Scale, Correlation Matrix 119 5.4 Frequency, “A person should consider the needs of his 120 family as a whole more important than his own.” 6.0 Regression of Cultural Assimilation on Generation, 129 Religious Affiliation, Percent Armenian, and Years of Education 6.1 Crosstab, Cultural Assimilation by Generation 131 6.2 Crosstab, Cultural Assimilation by Generation, controlling 132 for Religious Affiliation XIX Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6.3 Crosstab, Cultural Assimilation by Religious Affiliation 134 6.4 Regression of Structural Assimilation on Generation, 136 Religious Affiliation, Percent Armenian, and Years of Education 6.5 Crosstab, Structural Assimilation by Religious Affiliation 137 6.6 Regression of Marital Assimilation on Generation, Religious 140 Affiliation, Percent Armenian, and Years of Education 6.7 Crosstab, Marital Assimilation by Generation 141 6.8 Crosstab, Marital Assimilation by Generation, controlling for 142 Religious Affiliation 6.9 Crosstab, Marital Assimilation by Religious Affiliation 143 6.10 Crosstab, Marital Assimilation by Location of Marriage 144 Ceremony 6.11 Crosstab, Marital Assimilation by Ethnicity of Dates 145 6.12 Crosstab, Identificational Assimilation by Generation 147 6.13 Crosstab, Identificational Assimilation by Religious 148 Affiliation 6.14 Crosstab, Identificational Assimilation by Percent Armenian 149 6.15 Crosstab, Identificational Assimilation by Years of 149 Education 7.0 Frequency, Current Collective Identity 158 7.1 Frequency, Change in Collective Identity 160 7.2 Crosstab, Ranking of Having Armenian Parents by 163 Generation 7.3 Crosstab, Ranking of Identifying with Armenian People by 164 Generation XX Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17 7.18 Crosstab, Ranking of Knowing Armenian History by 165 Generation Crosstab, Ranking of Speaking Armenian by Generation 166 Frequency Percentages for Various Characteristics of Third 168 and Fourth Generation Respondents Exhibiting High and Low Levels of Cultural Assimilation Frequency Percentages for Various Characteristics of Third 170 and Fourth Generation Respondents Exhibiting High and Low Levels of Structural Assimilation Frequency Percentages for Various Characteristics of Third 172 and Fourth Generation Respondents Exhibiting High and Low Levels of Identificational Assimilation Crosstab, Ethnicity of Spouse by Year of Marriage 176 Crosstab, Ethnicity of Spouse by Cultural Assimilation 178 Crosstab, Ethnicity of Spouse by Structural Assimilation 178 Crosstab, Ethnicity of Spouse by Identificational 178 Assimilation Correlations, Ethnicity of Spouse and Recollection Variables 181 Correlations, Ethnicity of Spouse and Individual Change in 182 Other Measures of Assimilation Frequency (select if Intermarried), Childhood Ethnic Group 183 Identification Frequency (select if Intermarried), Current Ethnic Group 183 Identification Frequency (select if Intermarried), Proportion of High School 184 Friends Armenian Frequency (select if Intermarried), Proportion of Current 185 Friends Armenian xxi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7.19 7.20 7.21 7.22 7.23 7.24 Frequency (select if Intermarried), Childhood Religious Affiliation Frequency (select if Intermarried), Current Religious Affiliation Crosstab, Ethnicity of Spouse by Participation in Genocide Commemoration Crosstab, Ethnicity of Spouse by Attendance at Armenian Organization Activities/Meetings Crosstab, Feel Welcome by Ethnicity of Spouse Crosstab, Parent/Family Initial Reception of Spouse by Ethnicity of Spouse Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT Assimilation AND Ethnicity: Adaptation Patterns and Ethnic Identity of Armenian-Americans in Central California This dissertation presents an analysis of the responses of 294 individuals of Armenian descent living in the four-county San Joaquin Valley who completed, a mail questionnaire as participants in 'The Study of Armenian-Americans in Central California.” The study aims to: (I) provide a demographic snapshot of one of the oldest Armenian communities in America; (2) explore the processes of assimilation and ethnicity across generations as a test of straight-line theory; (3) examine the forms of ethnic identity and ethnicity that persist through the third and fourth generations; and (4) investigate the phenomenon of intermarriage and its implications. These combine to address the issue of whether or not a paradigm shift from the conceptualization of assimilation versus ethnicity to assimilation and ethnicity is warranted, hence the title of this dissertation. Drawing from Milton Gordon’s (1964) conceptual framework and the theoretical frameworks of J. Milton Yinger’s (1981, 1994) assimilation and dissimilation and Wsevolod Isajiw’s (1990, 1991) ethnic identity retention, the four subprocesses of assimilation—cultural, structural, marital, and identificational—are examined for patterns of change (i.e., assimilation) and persistence (i.e., ethnicity). This study demonstrates the co-existence of assimilation and ethnicity. Examples of linear assimilation and retention of ethnicity, and combinations of the xxiii Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. two. are found. Regression and crosstab analyses reveal varying degrees of the four types of assimilation and challenge the straight-line theory of assimilation. Rather than assimilation versus ethnicity, I argue for assimilation and ethnicity. Assimilation and ethnicity/ethnic-identity retention are proposed to be two, somewhat independent, processes, not one and the same. They are not necessarily contradictory or inconsistent with one another. Different types of assimilation can occur on some levels while ethnicity/ethnic identity persists on another level. Assimilation should not be viewed as a unilinear or zero-sum phenomenon, but rather as multidimensional and multidirectional. Future research must attempt to understand the forms ethnicity takes for different generations of different groups while examining the patterns of change and persistence for the fourth generation and beyond. Findings of the fluidity of ethnic identity suggest longitudinal research is also necessary. xxiv Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION I should like to see any power of the world destroy this race, this small tribe of unimportant people, whose wars have all been fought and lost, whose structures have crumbled, whose literature is unread, whose music is unheard, whose prayers are no longer uttered. Go ahead, destroy this race. Let us say that it is again 1915. There is war in the world. Destroy Armenia. See if you can do it. Send them from their homes into the desert. Let them have neither bread nor water. Bum their houses and churches. See if they will not live again. See if they will not laugh again. See if the race will not live again. For when two of them meet, anywhere in the world, see if they will not create a New Armenia. (Saroyan 1936:438, 1984:7) The above quote, attributed to the great Armenian-American, Fresno, Califomia-bom, author and playwright, William Saroyan, alludes to the “new” Armenia that is created wherever any two Armenians meet. In relation to the three stages of immigrant adaptation to a new homeland identified by Gustavo Perez Firmat (1994). this quotation characterizes the third stage. In the first stage, “Substitution,” the immigrants create substitutes or copies of the home culture in an attempt to deny displacement. Hence, in several large cities in the United States, we have seen various groups establish ethnic enclaves, with names like “Little Italy,” “Little Armenia,” “Chinatown,” “Greektown,” “Pole Town,” and “Little Havana.” The general theme of this first stage is: “we are still there.” However, as Perez Firmat (1994:7) notes, the adjective “little” is equivocal in that it views these enclaves as not only smaller than their originals, but also diminished in l Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ways more important than square miles or population: “What's little is its diminished status as a deficient or incomplete copy of the original. No matter how great the effort, substitution is always partial.” The theme of the second stage, “Destitution” (literally “not having a place to stand on”), is: “we are nowhere.” Here, the immigrant group members feel estranged and disconnected from both the home society and the host society. Finally, in stage three, “Institution,” the theme denotes a sense of permanence: “here we are. ” In Saroyan’s quote, the use of the verb “create,” rather than “recreate,” and the adjective “new,” rather than “little,” is significant in that the message is unequivocal. The establishment of Armenians anywhere in the world will not re-create Armenia. Armenia is Armenia. Anywhere else will be a “New Armenia.” Saroyan’s quote also alludes to the permanence of ethnicity. This view stands in stark contrast to some of the models of assimilation and acculturation. Porter and Washington (1993) identify three basic approaches of social science theory to acculturation and assimilation: the single continuum, two-dimensional, and multi dimensional models. The “single continuum model” regards the ethnic and mainstream cultures as mutually exclusive. Acculturation involves the loss of traditional traits and the acceptance of new cultural traits. Acculturation typically precedes assimilation, as people are slower to change their social structures and relationships than their cultures or attitudes (Rosenthal 1960) and because acculturation occurs internally at the individual ethnic person’s own pace while assimilation requires external permission to enter “American” groups or institutions 2 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (Lieberson 1961). Although viewing ethnic identification as distinct from acculturation and structural assimilation, “straight-line theory" (as referred to by Sandberg 1974) argues that America’s ethnic groups are confined to an ongoing process of acculturation and assimilation that inevitably results in a loss or weakening of ethnic identity. Robert E. Park outlined one of the first “straight-line” theories in his four-stage race-relations cycle, tracing three progressive and irreversible processes— contact, competition, and accommodation—that ultimately led to assimilation (Park 1950; Park and Burgess [1921] 1969). The primary empirical application of this paradigm, Warner and Srole’s (1945) study of eight ethnic groups in “Yankee City.” identified factors associated with the processes of acculturation and assimilation. From this theoretical perspective, assimilation is seen as zero-sum, one dimensional, and one-directional. I contend that assimilation and ethnicity can coexist, albeit mutually affecting the nature of each. The two-dimensional or bicultural model views identity with the host culture and the culture of origin as distinct dimensions (Porter and Washington 1993). From this perspective, each culture independently exists along its own single continuum. Acculturation, for example, may be additive and not just substitutive. That is, an individual may adopt mainstream cultural traits in addition to one’s own ethnic values, norms, and styles (Yinger 1994). Further, the individual may exhibit some degree of structural assimilation, interacting with mainstream social structures, but still possess some ethnic associations. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Perhaps an even more appropriate view is the multi-dimensional or pluralistic model of acculturation and assimilation. From this perspective, acculturation and assimilation are considered variables, not attributes, and therefore are reversible. The acceptance of new cultural traits or social associations and retention of traditional cultural traits and social associations are viewed as varying from trait to trait, with the result that assimilation and acculturation are regarded as complex and situationally dictated processes. (Porter and Washington 1993:143) For example, one may eat the foods of one’s ethnic group at home but not when in the company of business associates. The various aspects of the multi-dimensional assimilation process “are highly interactive; but they vary separately (although not entirely independently), propelled by somewhat different sets of causes; they change at different rates and in different sequences” (Yinger 1994:41-42). Assimilation and dissimilation are considered reciprocal processes in which at the same time cultural lines of division between groups are weakened, intrasocietal differences are maintained. ‘T he study of assimilation is simultaneously the study of dissimilation” (Yinger 1981, 1985, 1994:40). Yinger (1994) acknowledges that assimilation of ethnic groups in the United States, while occurring to greater and lesser extents depending on the group, is rarely complete. In noting the persistence in ethnic variation, Yinger also warns against exaggerating the salience of ethnic identities. Many sociologists have referred to the continued ethnic identification among highly assimilated groups as “dime store ethnicity” (Stein and Hill 1977), “sidestream ethnicity” (Fishman 1985), “symbolic ethnicity,” with more expressive than instrumental functions (Alba 1985a, 1985b; 4 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bakalian 1993; Gans 1979), “emergent” and “situational” (Yancey, Ericksen, and Juliani 1976), or an “ethnic option” invoked under certain conditions (Waters 1990). However, it seems to me that the salience and meaning of these described forms of ethnic identity among later-generation white ethnics are minimized. I concur with Isajiw (1994:13) who argues that “it [is] wrong to interpret the symbolic value which ethnicity may have as ‘unreal,’ ‘not significant,’ or ‘unimportant.’” Due to the paucity of research on the third generation and beyond, the issue of what type and form of ethnicity still exists among mobile, later generation white ethnics is largely unanswered (Waters 1992). Armenians have created a “New Armenia” in the United States of America, with its own social, religious, cultural, educational, and political institutions. Yet, this subculture is understudied. “Armenian-Americans have been generally overlooked by census enumerators, survey analysts, and social scientists because of their small number and relative dispersion” (Bakalian 1993:cover jacket). They remain a “hidden minority,” as referred to by Rollins (1981). This research provides scientific evidence on a numerically small, yet distinct ethnic group and seeks to partially fill the gap in the literature on later-generation ethnicity. Statem ent o f the Problem The primary focus of the dissertation on later-generation ethnicity among Armenian-Americans in the San Joaquin Valley in Central California will shed light 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. on the form and type of ethnicity that evolves over time. Also, given the high intermarriage rate of this population, I will be able to examine the factors associated with and the effects of intermarriage and how intermarriage affects ethnic familial and community involvement and ethnic identification. All of this combines to address the issue of whether or not a paradigm shift from looking at ethnicity as a matter of assimilation versus ethnicity to one of assimilation and ethnicity is required within the discipline, hence the title of this dissertation. Genesis o f Interest. The current research problem has emerged from the research that I began in the fall of 1990, when I was in my final year of undergraduate study at California State University, Fresno. As a self-described Armenian-American, I was interested in assimilation and ethnic intermarriage among Armenians in California. Upon the suggestion of my undergraduate sociology advisor, Professor John Tinker, using marriage license records from Fresno County, in Central California, I examined the marriage licenses of people of Armenian descent for the years 1930, 1960, and 1990. Access to the data for 1940 and 1980, collected by Beth Najarian (1982), allowed me to combine the two data sets to make one large sample. The marriage licenses contained information about where the participants and their parents were bom, where the ceremony was performed, occupation, and, occasionally, education of the bride and groom. From this data, I was able to document the rates of intermarriage for the given years and control for generation. Table 1.0 is a multivariate crosstabulation with intermarriage as the dependent 6 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. variable, year of marriage as the independent variable, and generation as the control variable. TABLE 1.0 Intermarriage Rates of Armenian-sumamed Brides and Grooms in Fresno County by Year and Generation, 1930, 1940, 1960, 1980, and 1990 1930 1940 Year 1960 1980 1990 Total Both Parents 10.4 14.7 42.0 63.6 42.3 28.5 foreign bom (48) (68) (50) (22) (26) (214) Both Parents 0.0 0.0 100.0 89.2 87.9 90.4 bom in U.S. (0) (0) (13) (37) (33) (83) Total 10.4 14.7 54.0 80.0 67.8 48.5 (48) (68) (63) (59) (59) (297) *Note: Read the table in the following way: In 1930. 10.4% of the 48 marriages in Fresno County of people whose parents were bom in a foreign country were intermarriages. **People with one parent bom in the U.S. and one foreign-born parent are not presented in this table. They represented only 30 (9%) of the 327 total marriages. The cell frequencies were too sparse for meaningful comparison. Source: Fresno County Marriage Records. This table reveals that the rate of intermarriage has increased between the years 1930 and 1980 and decreased between 1980 and 1990 among those whose parents are both foreign-born. This decrease between 1980 and 1990 from 64% to 42% might be attributed to the expanding pool of eligible mates for Armenian children of foreign-born parents. The late 1980's and early 1990's have seen a rise in Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fresno's Armenian immigrant population due to the political turmoil in the Middle East and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. At the same time, among those with both parents bom in the U.S., except for the small number of cases in 1960 (13), in which all were intermarriages, the proportions of 1980 and 1990 have remained relatively consistent at 89% and 88%, respectively. From this table, one may conclude that generational status has an impact on the likelihood of intermarriage. Over the entire sample of all five years, only 29% of those people whose parents were bom in a foreign country were intermarriages compared to 90% of those whose parents were both bom in the U.S. Children of native-born Armenian parents were three times as likely to marry someone from a different ethnic background than children of foreign-born Armenian parents. Thus, for this sample, the later the generation, the more likely one is to intermarry. While confirming my initial hypothesis, the rate was much higher than I expected for either of the generations. I became interested in understanding factors associated with intermarriage, wondering if certain types of Armenian-Americans were more or less likely to marry outside their ethnic group. Are there differences regarding how Armenians who have intramarried and Armenians who have intermarried identify, both subjectively and objectively, with their ethnic background? What about childhood socialization, exposure to other Armenians, and involvement in an Armenian church or community? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In my first year in graduate school, to answer some of these questions, I interviewed four Armenian-American females, two of whom had intramarried and two of whom had intermarried. All four were either the children or grandchildren of immigrants. I observed, contrary to my expectations, that subjective ethnic identification was similar for both pairs. They all identified as Armenians or Armenian-Americans and reported that it was somewhat or very important to them. All four of the women maintained close associations with the Armenian side of the family. All four attend an Armenian church. But, while it was clear that they have all gone through some degree of assimilation in that none of them spoke or read Armenian fluently, ate only Armenian food, nor were extremely active in Armenian cultural, religious, or political organizations, it was also evident that the women who had married other Armenians had undergone somewhat less assimilation. What distinguished these pairs was the extent of objective ethnicity. That is, the two who had intramarried were both much more involved in the Armenian church and interacted with other Armenians, both acquaintances and professionals, more frequently. In addition, they were able to speak more Armenian and prepare more Armenian recipes, kept more ethnic traditions, and were more involved in Armenian community activities. From conversations with the two who had intermarried, I observed that marrying a non-Armenian might have been the result of their lack of individual experiences with, and exposure to, Armenians during their dating and courting years. Those who intermarried had dated more non-Armenians than Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Armenians before they married. Conversely, the intramarried women reported that they had dated more Armenians than non-Armenians. It is largely recognized that intermarriage can be considered an index of a group’s assimilation into the larger society and can, in fact, hasten the assimilation process. For, depending on whom one marries, the objective, behavioral measures of the individual’s “Armenianness” may either continue to erode through assimilation, erode more slowly, or actually increase. For this reason, intermarriage is of great concern for many ethnic groups. As occurs within other ethnic communities, Armenian community leaders often speak about intermarriage as “a threat” to the continuation of the Armenian culture and ethnic group. Even the scholars have recognized intermarriage as an important indicator of the assimilation of immigrants into American society. Julius Drachsler (1920:82) viewed intermarriage as “the most severe test of group cohesion.” Lowry Nelson (1943:591) noted that “Intermarriage is a test of the strength or weakness o f ... prejudices and must therefore be regarded as a final test of assimilation.” Intermarriage has further been described as “the most direct and powerful force by which the present and next generations may be welded together into a unified social and cultural amalgam” (Carpenter 1927:232), “a realistic index of the process of assimilation” (Bossard 1939:792), “at once an index and a method of assimilation” (Hurd 1929), “the litmus test of assimilation” (Jiobu 1988:149), and “the final outcome of assimilation” (Hirschman 1983:408). From my interviews with the two who had intermarried, I was most fascinated by the fact that, apart from one of the non-Armenian spouse’s learning some 10 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Armenian phrases, neither of the non-Armenian spouses had been incorporated into the Armenian-American community—the very same community of which these women claimed to be a member. Even though the non-Armenian spouses attended family gatherings, at which their families were fairly accepting of their non-Armenian status, they did not attend Armenian church services, cultural events, or social activities with the Armenian wives. I began to wonder: Perhaps the Armenian- American community has not fully embraced these and other non-Armenian spouses and welcomed them into their membership. Many times, I have observed a person, obviously not Armenian-looking from his or her physical characteristics, enter an Armenian church service or social function only to be met by quick, snapping head turns and a certain amount of whispers among the Armenians present. Had these non- Armenian spouses been treated as outsiders and not accepted? Or, was participation in the Armenian-American community just not important to these non-Armenians? If the former were the case, then because of the high intermarriage rate of Armenian- Americans (Aharonian 1983; Bakalian 1993; Jendian 1994), the Armenian-American community must be losing an incredible number of members (and potential members). If, on the other hand, the non-involvement of the non-Armenian spouse was reflective of the lack of interest in the Armenian community on the part of their Armenian spouse, then intermarriage is not so much removing Armenians from the community as it is occurring among Armenians who are already removed. The only way to answer these questions was to interview non-Armenian spouses themselves. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The following semester, I interviewed four non-Armenian spouses (two males and two females) of Armenian-Americans about their ethnic identification and involvement with their Armenian in-laws and the Armenian community. In presenting some of their comments here, I changed the names of my respondents, generating a new name that reflects the ethnic connotations of the respondents’ real names, following Waters’ (1990) example. That is, if a respondent had an Armenian first or last name, I gave them a similar pseudonym. In three of the four cases, the couple was more involved with their Armenian in-laws than their own relatives, even when their relatives lived just as close to them. When asked about how their families handled holidays, responses ranged from “because of the strained personal relationship, I never see my family” to “[we go to someone's house] from her side of her family for the main part of it and then we see my family as an adjunct” to “we try to have both sides get together.” So in every case, these families were very much involved with their Armenian relatives, sometimes at the expense of not seeing their non-Armenian relatives. However, amidst their tendency to spend more time with the Armenian side of the family, I did not perceive any tension or hostility within the persons interviewed. All of them tended to be very understanding of the situation and as Ray MacDonald put it, “I recognized it and I was aware that, yes, I was marrying someone with a much stronger cultural ethnic background than mine.” In addition, all of their Armenian relatives had been accepting of them and had welcomed them into the family, even though in some cases there may have been some initial tension. When I asked how 12 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. members of her spouse’s family received her, Betty Lampronian replied, “Very lovingly.” Likewise, Ray responded that he had “never had a problem with her folks.” So, concerning family relations, the results of this pilot study were very similar to Johnson’s (1985) study of 98 intermarried Italian-American couples, which found that those families who chose only one extended family system on which to concentrate their loyalties, the majority (69%) chose the Italian side: “Generally in families that are drawn to the Italian side, non-Italian in-laws are readily accepted as long as they accommodate to Italian ways.” In some cases, Johnson reported that a genuine “Italianization” had taken place, whereby the non-Italian spouse had adopted the Italian family as their own through a conscious personal preference. “Others accepted their absorption into the Italian family with resignation, ‘When you marry an Italian, you marry the whole family’” (Johnson 1985:131). Likewise, in my pilot study, all of those interviewed accepted their absorption into the Armenian side of the family knowing that was to be expected based on the close relationship of their Armenian partner and his or her Armenian family. Thus, I concluded that the more important factors that determine the extent of involvement in the Armenian side of the family are: (1) the closeness of the relationship between the Armenian spouse and his or her family and (2) the level of tolerance and acceptance of that relationship by the non-Armenian spouse. Regarding community relations, I found that only two of the four were at least somewhat involved with the Armenian community. I had expected this would tend to 13 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. be the case, and I had hypothesized that this might be due to the lack of acceptance among Armenian-American community members. What I learned from the two individuals who were somewhat involved in the Armenian community was that the “quick, snapping head turns and whispers” that non-Armenians may encounter when walking into an Armenian function are often initial reactions. Once the individuals introduced themselves and their motivation for being there became known, they were readily accepted. They attended Armenian churches on a regular basis and had assumed leadership roles (e.g., Sunday School staff member and Parish Council member). So, it seems that what I thought, a lasting negative feeling towards the non- Armenian spouses that attend Armenian church and community events, may be only an initial reaction, perhaps based on a fear of not knowing why a non-Armenian might be coming to an Armenian event. Some scholars and community leaders and members suggest that the losses from the Armenian community as a result of intermarriage tend to outweigh the gains. However, from my pilot study interviews, the more important factor in determining the couple's orientation and the level of involvement of the non-Armenian spouse is the extent to which the Armenian spouse identifies with being Armenian, deems it important, and shows an interest and is involved with the Armenian social structures of family, church, and community. If the Armenian partner identifies with being of Armenian descent and participates in the Armenian community, the non-Armenian partner is likely to be accepting of that interest and may come to take an active role in that community as well. On the other hand, if the Armenian partner does not 14 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. associate with and take an interest in his or her own ethnic background and community, then the non-Armenian partner is not likely to do so either. Thus, from my preliminary work on this population, I have concluded that although the intermarriage rate is very high among third generation Armenian- Americans in Fresno County, it may be less often the case that intermarriage is removing Armenians from their community, but in fact more likely to occur among Armenians who are already removed or not involved with the ethnic community. Those who are not connected to Armenian social structures of family, church, or community are more likely to intermarry and, therefore, cannot be logically considered “lost” as a result of intermarriage. Furthermore, when intermarriage occurs for Armenians who are attached to Armenian social structures, it appears more likely that the non-Armenian spouse comes to accept what is important to his or her spouse and possibly joins in. Hence, what the Armenian community must understand is that it needs to reach out and form a bond with its Armenian members and not be so preoccupied with the high intermarriage rate; if this bond is there, the ethnicity of the partner they marry will not affect their relationship with their ethnic community and their union may even add a member to that community. These conclusions are very interesting in that they are likely to differ from the conclusions that most Armenian community leaders and members tend to draw. If what I have found is indeed the case, then the high intermarriage rate, while a potential assimilationist threat, is not as great a threat to the survival of the ethnic group as previously believed. This is a new idea and will be a difficult pill for many IS Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. traditional ethnics to swallow. This dissertation project has emerged from this context of findings generated by my prior research on Armenian-Americans in California. The high rates of intermarriage and acculturation that I observed and documented would seemingly indicate that Armenian-Americans as an ethnic group and ethnic identity among individuals of Armenian descent are in decline. And yet, from the same research emerges the suggestion that Armenian-Americans constitute a distinct and viable ethnic group, that individuals moderately and even strongly identify with being Armenian, and that some of the non-Armenian spouses and children of intermarried couples are being incorporated into and identifying with Armenian social structures of church, community, and family. Overview In this chapter, I introduced the topic under study and described the evolution of the current research in depth as I trace the genesis of the questions under investigation. My prior and preliminary work has relied upon archival sources (i.e., marriage licenses) and interview data (collected from people of Armenian descent and non-Armenian spouses of Armenian-Americans). While I have found trends of high intermarriage rates and other forms of assimilation among later-generation Armenian- Americans. I have also observed persistence of ethnicity, especially ethnic identification. With the current survey method, I will address this apparent contradiction and test the hypothesis of assimilation and ethnicity (i.e., that 16 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. assimilation is not necessarily zero sum, but rather can be an additive process or two processes). The next chapter describes the methodology employed for sampling the population, constructing the questionnaire, administering the questionnaire, collecting the data, and analyzing the data. 1 include a description of the sample and review the social and demographic characteristics of the 294 men and women of Armenian descent living in the Central San Joaquin Valley of California who constituted this sample. I conclude the chapter by presenting the operational definition for each of the dependent variables and the description of the construction of each corresponding scale. Chapter Three provides an overview of Armenian history, culture, immigration to the United States, and characteristics of Central California which serve as a context for understanding some of the traits, behaviors, and attitudes examined in the findings of the current study in chapters five, six, and seven. Chapter Four offers a review of the literature on ethnicity, including the dimensions and dominant paradigms of assimilation and ethnicity, and outlines the primary hypotheses. Chapter Five presents the descriptive findings of the sample, namely the adaptation patterns of assimilation and ethnicity found in the current sample, while Chapter Six reveals the results of the hypothesis testing. Chapter Seven explores further the co-existence of assimilation and ethnicity, while Chapter Eight serves as a summary and concludes the dissertation with implications for future research. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER TWO METHODOLOGY AND DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE Data Collection Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from my use of closed- and open-ended questions in a mail questionnaire (see Appendix A). Basic demographic data were gathered regarding year of birth, sex, ethnic ancestry, ethnic identification, generation, education, birthplace, employment status, occupation, education, marital status, family income, political party affiliation, religious affiliation, year of U.S. immigration, and household composition. In addition, a variety of traditional survey indicators of ethnic identity and opinion questions were asked. The findings from the cunent study are supplemented, where appropriate, with my own participant observations as an insider in the ethnic community. I am a 3.25-generation Armenian-American, bom in Fresno, California to U.S.-born parents of Armenian descent. I identify myself as an Armenian-American, have a minor degree in Armenian Studies from California State University, Fresno, and am quite familiar with the Armenian-American subculture. My insider status provides me with the accessibility to Armenian-American networks, both those formally organized and those that have been established through personal interaction. I have resided in both 18 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fresno and Los Angeles, two well-known Armenian-American communities in California. While in each city, I attend Armenian concerts, church services, festivals, dinner dances, sporting events, theater, conventions, lectures, seminars, weddings, funerals, etc. This knowledge of and familiarity with the Armenian community in California provides me with a helpful background to study this population. Sampling Procedures. The source of the addresses is the 1998 Haines Criss- Cross CD-ROM Directory for the Central San Joaquin Valley (released in February 1998) which contains 413,435 listings in the Madera, Fresno, Kings, and Tulare counties. I began narrowing the database by discarding places of business. While the use of name characteristics could, not accurately identify ethnic ancestry for some groups, in the case of the Armenians, the chance for error is small. I conducted a search of surnames ending in “ian” as most Armenian names have this suffix indicating “belonging to the family of.” The final list was checked to be sure not to include any obvious non-Armenian surnames that fit that search (e.g., Christian). I followed a similar procedure for names ending in “yan” (e.g, Saroyan) and “oglu” (e.g., Berberoglu) (Turkish suffix meaning “the son o f ’). LaPiere (1930), in his study of the Armenian Colony in Fresno, notes that name changing and modification among Armenians were quite rare. In checking names where data on national origin was given, he observed that only 32, or less than 3%, of 1,133 families did not have the ending “ian.” Even so, some changes in which the suffix is dropped are still easily discernible given the uniqueness of the word roots 19 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (e.g., Iskender, Barsam, etc.). Furthermore, those who actually took a new surname tended to adopt the English equivalent of the Armenian name (e.g., Bedrosian = Peters; Hatzaqordzian = Baker; Ayroudzian = Lion). To ensure less error of overlooking those who had either changed their names or had an unusual last name, and even those who had married non-Armenians and taken a new last name, I gathered a series of lists from the different Armenian churches and organizations in the San Joaquin Valley. Also, having been bom and raised in a family that is very involved in the Armenian community, I am fairly familiar with different family names. From this master list of nearly 6,000 residences in the four-county area that contained at least one person of Armenian descent, I had the computer generate a random sample of 600 addresses. Due to Fresno County being an older Armenian community, where only 26.5% of the Armenian population is from the immigrant generation (compared to nearly 72% in Los Angeles [Sabagh, Bozorgmehr, and Der- Martirosian 1988]), I was likely to receive a large enough frequency distribution of each generational strata through a simple random sample. This would allow for adequate comparisons of ethnicity between early-generation and later-generation Armenian-Americans and generalizations to the larger Armenian-American community. However, to maximize the number of later-generation Armenian- Americans included in the sample and to ensure an equal representation of males and females, each of the randomly selected households received instructions in the cover letter and in the survey instrument itself regarding who should complete the survey. 20 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. My preference was to hear from an adult person (age 18 or over) from the latest generation. That is, if there were more than one adult person of Armenian descent in the household, those individuals whose great-grandparents or grandparents were the first to come to America were asked to complete the survey in preference to those whose parents or they themselves were immigrants. If there were two or more adults of the same generation in the household, I requested that the person with the most recent birthday do so, to ensure an even distribution of males and females. Although generalizations to the larger Armenian-American community of the Central San Joaquin Valley and perhaps California or the United States may be drawn, the primary goal is to compare generations and to investigate the type and form ethnicity takes on in later-generation white ethnics. The Central San Joaquin Valley was selected as the area of study due to its proximity, my familiarity, and the presence of a large number of later-generation Armenian-Americans. Furthermore, I presumed a good response rate would be obtained, as many respondents in this area may be familiar either with my family name, individual achievements, or the academic institution of California State University, Fresno with which I am affiliated. Finally, Fresno, as one of the oldest Armenian communities in the United States, holds a special place in the Diaspora, has been referred to as “the capital of Armenia outside Armenia,’' and is considered by many Armenians the cradle of Armenian culture in the Western United States (Buibulian 2000). “I supposed that Fresno was in Armenia,” replied the consul 21 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. general of the Republic of Armenia shortly after landing at Fresno Yosemite International Airport (quoted in McCarthy 1998:A1). Questionnaire Construction and Mailing. Crispino’s (1980) and Alba’s (1990) surveys of assimilation among Italian Americans and Bakalian’s (1993) survey of Armenian-Americans in the Metropolitan New York and New Jersey area were used as models. I also consulted a study by Petoyan (1993) in devising questions related to church affiliation and attendance. One attitude statement was taken from the “Scale of Familism” by Bardis (1959); four attitude statements were taken from the “Scale of Familism” and three attitude statements from the ‘Traditional Gender Role scale” used in the Longitudinal Study of Generations at the University of Southern California; several attitude statements were adopted from Sandberg’s (1974) “Group Cohesiveness Scale,” Der-Karabetian and Oshagan’s (1977) “Ethnic Orientation Questionnaire (EOQ)” that had been tested on samples of Armenians in Lebanon and the United States, and Bakalian’s (1993) survey. The majority of questions are closed-ended, but several open-ended questions, requiring short answers, were also included. The layout was professional and clear. The last page of the questionnaire was left blank for respondents to write any comments, their family history, etc. The questionnaire and the letters introducing the study were pre-tested on approximately twenty men and women of different generational statuses and shown to several community leaders, sociologists, and survey experts. 22 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The questionnaires were purposely not tagged with an identification number to increase anonymity, as Bakalian (1993) noted it as a hindrance for some participants. After talking to or receiving letters from 102 men and women of Armenian descent who did not participate in her survey, she found that 19% refused because the survey was not anonymous, questions were too personal or political in nature, or because they would not participate in surveys on principle. In June 1998, prior to any mailings, I issued a press release in June 1998 that appeared in The Armenian Observer, The Armenian Reporter, Asbarez, The California Courier, The Mirror-Spectator, and Nor Gyank, announcing the upcoming survey, describing the academic purposes, and urging people to complete the questionnaire should they receive one. On Monday, October 12, 1998, one week in advance of mailing the questionnaire, I mailed each of the randomly selected households a package containing: a letter printed on California State University, Fresno, Department of Sociology stationery, a copy of the press release announcing the study, and a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) sheet (see Appendix A). The letter introduced the primary researcher, explained the academic and educational purpose of the project, and promised anonymity and confidentiality of responses. The FAQ sheet informed the respondents of their selection as participants and responded to potential questions they might have about the study. On Monday, October 19, 1998, I sent each of the 600 residences a package that included: a return addressed postage-paid envelope, a cover letter, again printed on California State University, Fresno, Department of Sociology stationery, a FAQ sheet, the twenty-page 23 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. questionnaire, and an addressed postage-paid postcard to be returned separately for entry in a sweepstakes for one of twelve $100 cash prizes (see Appendix A). In accordance with Dillman's (1978) ‘Total Design Method (TDM),” first- class stamps ensured quick delivery and address correction requested service ensured return in the case of wrong addresses. Both the advance and cover letters were personally signed in blue ballpoint pen; names and addresses were individually typed on the packages. At three weeks, and again at five weeks, follow-up postcards were mailed as a reminder, and a brief notice also appeared in several of the local Armenian organizations’ November bulletins and newsletters (see Appendix A). For those packages returned to sender with address corrections, changes were noted and packages were re-mailed. Those packages returned with “no such number,” “deceased,” or “moved out of state” were replaced with randomly selected addresses from a substitute pool of addresses. As of January 10, 1999, 254 completed surveys had been returned. In June 1999, I made approximately 100 phone calls to randomly selected nonrespondents in order to obtain forty-six additional surveys needed for a 50% response rate. I spoke directly with 67 individuals (40 of whom eventually returned a completed questionnaire). I also learned of some of the reasons for nonresponses: some either did not have time or weren’t interested (10 cases), were not Armenian despite having names ending in “ian” (3 cases), were very hesitant about sharing personal information (3 cases), had moved out of the area (4 cases), could not read English (2 cases), were too ill or unable to complete the questionnaire (3 cases), or were 24 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. deceased (2 cases). The messages I left with the remaining 33 individuals were not returned. Having learned of these certain circumstances at such a late date, no replacements were made. Excluding from the sample population the three non- Armenian households, the four who had moved out of the area, the three who were too ill, and the two who had passed away, I ended up with a final sample of 588 households. Response Rate. From the 588 households sampled, 294 completed surveys were returned for a 50% response rate, adequate for analysis and reporting according to Babbie (1979:335). Given the length and depth of the survey, it is assumed that most who did not complete the survey were too busy, too old, or too tired to devote the time and energy required. One respondent noted at the end of his survey, “G ’ paveh—enough already.” It is also likely that, because the survey instrument was not translated into the Armenian language, many immigrants were deterred from completing the survey. Although I did learn of some reasons for nonresponse from my follow-up phone calls of a subset of nonrespondents, ideally, information would have been gathered from the nonrespondents to determine if/how they are different from those who responded and the reasons for nonresponse. As an alternative, two other procedures provide some description of this group. First, through a name analysis, a thorough review of the list of nonrespondents did reveal that approximately two- thirds were American-born and one-third was foreign-born (a higher proportion of 25 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. foreign-born compared to those who returned a completed questionnaire, as expected). Of the foreign-born nonrespondents, it appears 25% are from the Republic of Armenia, and half are over fifty years of age (the majority of those are sixty-five or older). Of the American-bom, it is estimated that 25% are over fifty years of age, the majority of whom are sixty-five or older. Second, in comparing the names of the nonrespondents to the membership/mailing lists of the Armenian churches (Orthodox and Protestant) in the San Joaquin Valley, it is estimated that approximately 55% are affiliated with Armenian Orthodox churches, 17% are affiliated with Armenian Protestant churches, and 28% are not affiliated with either (this corresponds roughly with the proportions of each among those who completed the questionnaire). Although these alternative approaches provide a less precise description of the population of nonrespondents than speaking directly with the individuals would, they do provide some confirmation as to the generalizability of the final sample obtained. The general presence of skepticism regarding surveys or sharing of personal information may also be greater for Armenian-Americans than for other groups. Several of my respondents remarked that enough information could be gathered from the answers to “figure out who I was” and, therefore, the survey was not anonymous. Bakalian (1993:59) did note some respondents’ references to “Big Brother” in the use of survey information. An 83 year old man who had immigrated from Turkey at the age of seventeen alluded to, what I believe, the main reason for such leeriness on the part of Armenians: “Your questionnaire was somewhat long. I hope people will answer. We are generally suspicious people because of 600 years of Turkish 26 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. suppression. For some, it may not be easy to answer ail questions” (quoted in Bakalian 1989:105). Sociologically speaking, one must understand the context or environment of a people when understanding their behavior. Years of foreign domination and subjugation have shaped the Armenian psyche for good and for bad and particular behaviors and characteristics may be seen, in part, as arising out of, or developed in response to, these experiences. From his review of sample surveys and non-respondents, Goyder (1987) argues against the specious idea of explaining non-response on the basis of social and demographic characteristics such as age, marital status, socio-economic status, etc. Advocating an exchange theory perspective, the idea that people assess costs and benefits for completing surveys, Goyder acknowledges the multi-dimensionality of survey non-response. While some non-responses may be situational (e.g., too busy), others may be attitudinal (e.g., distrust of surveys). Possibly, one component helps offset another, thus reducing biases. Biases and Generalizability. Among the biases to be acknowledged are those toward a more educated and a more “ethnic” although later generational representation of people of Armenian descent living in the Central San Joaquin Valley. Merely returning the survey likely implies some identification or association with one’s Armenian ancestry. However, the likelihood of a more “ethnic” sample may be balanced by the instructions requesting later-generation Armenian-Americans to fill out the survey. The primary bias in this study is inherent in the method of 27 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. collecting data through a mail questionnaire. The assumption is that respondents are English proficient and, thus, the bias is toward a more educated segment of the population. However, the sampling procedure used in this study is superior to others that relied on addresses from organizational mailing lists. Such samples are likely to underestimate the extent of assimilation to a greater degree, as those who are removed from the ethnic community would not be affiliated with such organizations. As a result of the methodology followed, the results of this study are believed to be primarily representative of the people of Armenian descent who acknowledge their ethnic ancestry and live in the Central San Joaquin Valley and secondarily of Armenian-Americans in older Armenian communities in America {e.g.. Worcester, MA, Providence, RI, and Philadelphia, PN). These communities have a similar size ethnic community and presence of Armenian institutions, two variables negatively correlated with assimilation (Breton 1964; Chichekian 1987). The data would be less generalizable to the Armenian community of Los Angeles, California because of the very high proportion of recent immigrants. Analysis Techniques. The data were coded and entered into SPSS®, the statistical package used. Frequency distributions and crosstabulations are presented for certain variables. Scales for three of the four types of assimilation were constructed. Reliability analysis was performed and a correlation matrix was generated to examine the relationships among the items. Cronbach’s Alpha was obtained to detect internal consistency of the scale. Person’s chi-square is used to 28 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. determine whether an association between variables exists, and Kendall’s Tau c, Cramer’s V, and Spearman’s correlation coefficient are used to test the strength of association. Regression equations are employed to determine which independent variable has more power in accounting for the different types of assimilation. SPSS® reports the level of significance of the probability of association. Description o f the Sample Comparison o f Subsamples. Because the completed surveys were returned in two different waves, it is important to determine the similarities and differences of the two groups before combining the two into one sample. The first 254 surveys were returned between October 26, 1998 and January 10, 1999, while the last 40 were received between June 11, 1999 and August 15, 1999 after personal phone calls were made to a randomly selected group of nonrespondents. One might predict that those requiring the follow-up phone call would be more assimilated and more similar to those who did not respond at all. However, the similarities between the two subsamples are substantial. The two populations are extremely similar with regard to Armenian ancestry, self-reporting of ethnic background to others, years of schooling completed, family income, political party affiliation, and rate of intermarriage. Subtle differences were found in age (mean=56.5 for first group, 48 for latter group), sex (51.2% female versus 59%, respectively), generational status (10.6% first generation and 32.7% 29 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. second generation versus 17.9% and 25.7%, respectively), and place of birth (88% U.S.-born versus 79.5%, respectively), and considering oneself a member of the Armenian ethnic group now (28.3% quite a bit and 40.6% very much so versus 38.5% and 30.8%, respectively). The largest differences between the two subsamples were found for marital status (15.7% never married and 11.4% were widowed versus 25.6% and 5.1%, respectively), religious affiliation (5.9% none, 57.9% Armenian Orthodox, 21.7% Armenian Protestant versus 10.3%, 69.2%, 5.1%, respectively), and personal view of oneself (15.0% Armenian and 5.5% American versus 7.7% and 10.3%, respectively). Still, the overwhelming majority of both subsamples viewed themselves as Armenian-American (67.7% and 66.7%). Given these comparisons, combining the two subsamples into one large sample is justified. The Full Sample. The demographic profile of the survey respondents is presented below (see Table 2.0). The table reveals that the sample comprises relatively equal proportions of males and females (48% and 52%, respectively) and exhibits a bell curve distribution for age (range 20-91; median=56; mean=55.7) and generational status (when recoded into four categories). Only 13% of the sample is foreign bom. This is likely due, in part, to the English language bias of the survey instrument, but Central California is known as an “older” Armenian ethnic community {i.e., the majority of its population is descended from the early waves of immigration to the United States). The sample is overwhelmingly Christian (6.6% 30 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. listed “None” for religious affiliation) with the majority (60.0%) affiliated with the Armenian Orthodox Church. A majority of the sample is married (66.6%) with stable families (5.8% separated or divorced). The socioeconomic characteristics of the sample are relatively high. Thirty- two percent have a baccalaureate degree and 22.8% have some type of post baccalaureate degree; only 2.1% have less than a high school diploma. The baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate figures are roughly twice the U.S. average (17.0% and 8.6%, respectively) (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2000), yet similar to the percentages reported for Armenian-Americans in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area (23.0% and 24.7%, respectively) (Bakalian 1993) and the national average of American Jews (59% of Jewish men and 47% of Jewish women have at least a college degree) (cited in Friedman 1989). With regard to annual family income, the sample exhibits an unusual distribution. Although a normal distribution was found for incomes between “Less than $10,000” and “90,000-99,000” with the peak being in the “$40,000-$49,000” and “$50,000-$59,999” categories, the modal response category was “$100,000 or more” (25.7%). Noteworthy is the fact that this question had the highest nonresponse rate (9.6%) among the demographic background questions. Several respondents explicitly wrote on the survey, “Refuse to answer” and “Personal!” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE 2.0 Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables, Full Sample Percentage of Total_____________________ Percentage of Total Sex (N=293) Generation (N=292) Male 47.8 1.0 11.6 Female 52.2 2.0-2.3 31.7 2.5 - 3.0 39.2 Marital Status (N=293) 3.25-4.0 17.1 Never Married 17.1 Married 66.6 Ancestry (N=293) Widowed 10.6 100% Armenian 84.6 Separated/Di vorced 5.8 62.5 - 96.875% Armenian 4.7 50% Armenian 10.6 Spouse’s Ethnic Ancestry (N=239) Of Armenian descent 62.8 Country of Birth (N=293) Not of Armenian descent 37.2 United States of America 87.0 Lebanon 3.8 Age (N=289; Median=56) Turkey 2.0 20-29 8.3 Other Middle East 2.0 30-39 12.1 Armenia S.S.R. 1.7 40-49 19.0 Europe 1.4 50-59 15.6 Egypt/Ethiopia 1.0 60-69 19.4 Mexico 0.7 70-79 17.3 Other 0.3 80+ 8.3 Year of Arrival in U.S. (N=38) Education (N=289; Mean=15.8 years) Prior to 1927 13.2 Less than HS diploma 2.1 1937-47 0.9 High School diploma 32.2 1956-60 15.8 Some college (AA degree) 10.7 1967-79 28.9 College Graduate (BA/BS) 32.2 1980-89 26.3 Graduate/Professional degree 22.8 1990-96 0.8 Income (N=265; Median=$60-69,999) Religious Affiliation (N=290) Less than $10,000 3.4 Armenian Orthodox 60.0 $10,000 $19,999 6.0 Armenian Protestant 19.7 $20,000 - $29,999 8.7 Armenian Catholic 0.3 $30,000 - $39,999 6.8 Roman Catholic 2.1 $40,000 - $49,999 12.1 Other Protestant 11.4 $50,000 - $59,999 11.7 None 6.6 $60,000 - $69,999 7.5 $70,000 - $79,999 7.5 Political Party Affiliation (N=287) $80,000 - $89,999 5.7 Republican 54.4 $90,000 - $99,999 4.9 Democrat 30.3 $100,000 or more 25.7 Independent 9.4 Green 0.7 Other 5.2 32 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Operational Definitions The basic definition of an Armenian used in this study is a person who identifies with his or her Armenian ancestry, regardless of generation or mixed parentage. No objective, behavioral qualifiers are imposed. Generation categories were adapted from Crispino (1980) and Warner and Srole (1945). Foreign-born respondents (except those who arrived at or below the age of six) are categorized as first generation (also immigrant generation); U.S.-born respondents (includes those arriving at or before the age of six) of foreign-born parents are categorized as second generation; U.S.-bom respondents of U.S.-born parents are defined as third generation; fourth generation includes those respondents whose parents and grandparents were all U.S.-born; one-quarter/one-half generations will be noted where one grandparent/parent is U.S.-born and the other is foreign bom. For example, a U.S.-born respondent with one foreign-born parent will be categorized as generation 2.5. Where generation is re-coded into three categories (i.e., early, mid, and late) first and second generation were grouped together as “early,” 2.25 through third generation were considered “mid,” and 3.25 through fourth generation were considered “late.” In this study, socio-economic status of respondents was measured objectively by respondent’s education and family income. Education was measured in two ways: total number of years of schooling completed and highest degree received. Total 33 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. annual family income (before taxes) was measured in increments of $10,000 up to “$100,000 or more.” The four main types of assimilation under examination are: cultural assimilation, structural assimilation (i.e., integration), marital assimilation, and identificational assimilation. Since scales are generally preferred over single-item measures because they can be more reliable, scales were constructed for three of the four dependent variables. Reliability analysis was performed and a correlation matrix was generated to examine the relationships among the individual items that compose the scale and to ensure internal consistency of the scale as a whole. A standardized Cronbach Alpha of .70 or higher reveals good internal consistency. What follows are the operational definition for each of the four dependent variables and the description of the construction of each corresponding scale. Cultural Assimilation. The seven variables forming the cultural assimilation scale focused on how often certain “ethnic” activities were engaged in: eating Armenian food at home, listening to the Armenian Radio Hour, watching Armenian television shows, reading Armenian literature (in Armenian or in translation), and receiving Armenian newspapers or magazines (in English or Armenian). All of these behaviors are associated with Armenian culture and can be considered “objective” or “eternal” measures of an individual’s degree of cultural assimilation. The scale also included two variables measuring respondents’ ability to speak and read/write the Armenian language. All seven variables had a five-category response set for a 34 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. possible range of scores from seven to thirty-five: the higher the score, the higher the degree of cultural assimilation. In fact, the range for this scale went from a minimum score of seven to a maximum of thirty-four, while the mean and median were quite similar at 25.13 and 26.00, respectively. The Alpha for this scale (N=285) was .8349 while the standardized item Alpha was .8394, both well above the .70 standard for internal consistency (see Table 2.1). TA BLE 2.1 Reliability Analysis for Cultural Assimilation Scale Correlation Matrix ACTARMTV ACTEAT ACTPAPRS ACTRADIO ACTRDLIT ACTARMTV 1.0000 ACTEAT .3597 1.0000 ACTPAPRS .4241 .3307 1.0000 ACTRADIO .6976 .4078 .4352 1.0000 ACTRDLIT .5053 .3703 .4938 .4252 1.0000 RNWARM .3708 .3429 .3090 .4531 .4699 SPKARM .3943 .4621 .3225 .4219 .3424 RNWARM SPKARM RNWARM 1.0000 SPKARM .6397 1.0000 N of Cases 285.0 Reliability Coefficients 7 items Alpha = 8349 Standardized item alpha .8394 Structural Assimilation. To measure structural assimilation— the degree to which an individual or ethnic group has been integrated into the larger social networks within the host society—six variables were combined into one scale. These 35 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. variables measured the extent of respondents’ Armenian personal, social, and professional networks. The questions focused on the number of Armenian professionals/businesses respondents dealt with, the number of Armenian friends respondents have and how often they spoke and visited, the proportion of Armenians dated relative to non-Armenians, how often respondents attended activities/meetings of Armenian organizations, and whether respondents felt more comfortable with Armenian people in general. All six variables had a five-category response set, except for the number of Armenian professionals/businesses dealt with, which was recoded into five categories from its original seven. The possible range of scores went from six to thirty—the higher the score, the higher the degree of structural assimilation. In fact, the range for this scale went from a minimum score of seven to a maximum of twenty-nine, while the mean and median were quite similar at 17.06 and 17.00, respectively. The Alpha for this scale (N=257) was .7411 while the standardized item Alpha was .7448, both exceeding the .70 standard for internal consistency (see Table 2.2). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TA BLE 2.2 Reliability Analysis for Structural Assimilation Scale Correlation Matrix ARMPR05 FRND2DAY ARMPR05 1.0000 FRND2DAY .3354 1.0000 ORGAMEET .2562 .3813 DATEHYE .1974 .4588 ACTFRNDS .3321 .4739 OPHANKSR .2910 .4675 OPHANKSR OPHANKSR 1.0000 ORGAMEET 1.0000 .2548 .3050 .2388 DATEHYE 1.0000 .2810 .3184 ACTFRNDS 1.0000 .3172 N of Cases = 257.0 Reliability Coefficients 6 items Alpha = .7411 Standardized item alpha = .7448 Marital Assimilation. Only one variable was necessary to measure marital assimilation— spouse’s ethnicity—and it consisted of three categories: “Spouse not of Armenian descent” (36% of the married respondents, N=239), “Spouse of some Armenian descent” (3%), and “Spouse entirely of Armenian descent” (61%). These categories were created from respondents’ self-report of the ethnic ancestry of their spouses’ mother and father. In addition respondents were asked to report how their spouse identifies ethnically. It is notable that seven respondents listed “Armenian” as their spouse’s ethnic identity although their spouses had no Armenian blood in their ancestry. 37 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Identificational Assimilation. Six variables were used to construct the scale to measure identificational assimilation. All of the variables were recoded into four- category response sets creating a possible range of scores from six to twenty-four— the higher the score, the higher the degree of identificational assimilation. In fact, the range for this scale went from a minimum score of six to a maximum of nineteen, while the mean and median were quite similar at 10.57 and 10.00, respectively. Respondents' self-reporting of how they think of themselves was recoded into “American,” “American of Armenian descent,” “Armenian-American,” and “Armenian.” The “not at all” and “not very important” responses were collapsed into one category for respondents’ rating of the importance of their ethnic background, and the other three response categories, “somewhat important,” “very important,” and “extremely important,” were left untouched. Similarly, the “not at all” and “not very much” responses to whether respondents consider themselves members of the Armenian ethnic group were collapsed, while the other three categories, “somewhat,” “quite a bit,” and “very much so,” remained intact. Three opinion questions rounded out the scale. Respondents indicated whether they “strongly agree,” “mildly agree,” “mildly disagree,” or “strongly disagree” to the following three statements: 1) Most of the time I don’t feel ethnic at all. 2) When I notice an Armenian name on a shop or in the media (such as movie credits, press) I feel happy, proud. 3) If someone said something bad about Armenian people, I would feel almost as if they had said something bad about me. “No opinion” responses were recoded as missing. The 38 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Alpha for this scale (N=225) was .6960 while the standardized item Alpha was .7022, which meets the standard for internal consistency (see Table 2.3). SELFIDR2 TABLE 2.3 Reliability Analysis for Identificational Assimilation Scale Correlation Matrix ARMIDN02 IMPORTI2 0PFELET2 SELFIDR2 1.0000 OPPROUD2 OPPUTDN2 ARMIDN02 IMPORTI2 1.0000 .4808 1.0000 OPFELET2 .4235 .4589 1.0000 OPPROUD2 .2217 .3631 .2212 1.0000 OPPUTDN2 1.0000 .2763 .3232 .1072 .3210 SELFIDR2 .1078 .2637 .2300 .2829 .1497 N of Cases = 225.0 Reliability Coefficients Alpha = .6960 6 items Standardized item alpha = .7022 Overview In this chapter, I described the methodology employed for sampling the population, constructing the questionnaire, administering the questionnaire, collecting the data, and analyzing the data. I included a description of the sample and reviewed the social and demographic characteristics of the 294 men and women of Armenian 39 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. descent living in the Central San Joaquin Valley of California who constituted this randomly generated sample. The sample exhibited a normal distribution with regard to generation and age and was evenly distributed by sex. The respondents, on average, were well educated and of high socioeconomic status. Approximately 60% and 20% of the respondents were affiliated with the Armenian Orthodox and Armenian Protestant churches, respectively, while 14% were affiliated with other Christian denominations and 7% were not affiliated with any religious institution. This sample is believed to be representative of Armenian-Americans in the Central San Joaquin Valley and, to a lesser degree, of Armenian-Americans in communities of similar ethnic group size, institutional viability, and generational status. I concluded the chapter by presenting the operational definition for each of the four dependent variables and the description of the construction of each corresponding scale of assimilation. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER THREE ARMENIAN HISTORY AND CULTURE Origins and Kingdoms. The Armenians are an ancient Indo-European people, one of the oldest groups to still be in existence today. Although the fifth century historian Moses Khorenats‘i ([1913] 1978) outlined a genealogy connecting the Armenians to Noah (as has been done with other groups), the first known historical reference to Armenia and Armenians is by the Greek historian Hecateus of Miletus (c. 550 B.C.) and in the inscription of the Persian king, Darius I, on the rock of Behistun (c. 520 B.C.), in modem northern Iran (Avakian 1998; Boumoutian 1993). While the size of their territory has varied, Armenians have generally occupied the area in Asia Minor between the Black, Caspian, and Mediterranean seas. The boundaries are marked by the Kur River in the east, the Pontic and Lesser Caucasus mountain chains in the north, the Euphrates River and the northern stretch of the Anti-Taurus Mountains in the west, and the Taurus and upper Zagros mountain chains in the south. Although much of their history is one of foreign domination by a variety of groups, including Romans, Parthians, Persians, Greeks, Medes, Arabs, Mongols, Seljuk Turks, Mamlukes, Turkomans, Ottoman Turks, and, most recently, Soviet Russians, the Armenians have had their own kingdoms: Yervantian (Orontid) (330-200 B.C.), Artashesian (Artaxid) (190-10 B.C.), Arshaguni (Arsacid) (53-428 A.D.), Bagratuni 41 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (862-1045), Ardzrouni (907-1020), and Rubinian and Hetumian Dynasties and the Cilician Kingdom (1080-1375). Two renowned Armenian kings of the early centuries are Dikran and Drtad. During the reign of Dikran the Great (Tigranes II), 95-55 B.C., with Persia weakened and Rome troubled by internal stability, Armenia expanded its territorial domain to its greatest extent, “from sea to sea.” In 301 A.D., according to church tradition (314 A.D. according to historians), with the declaration by Drtad the Great (Tiridates ID), Armenia became the first nation-state to proclaim Christianity as the state religion. While the Armenian language was spoken during this time, it was not until the beginning of the fifth century A.D. that its own, unique alphabet was created by Mesrob Mashdotz, initially including 36 letters (today, it has 38). The establishment of a written language opened the way for the production of original manuscripts and translations of foreign works, and the fifth century is regarded as the Golden Age of Armenian civilization for the mass of volumes that were produced. The first work translated into Armenian was the Bible in 436 A.D. Foreign Domination. By the mid-seventh century, Islam was sweeping the Middle East, and with it came Arab domination of Armenia. In the ninth century, the rise of the Bagratuni Dynasty marked a peaceful and flourishing time in the country. However, this was short lived as invasions of the Seljuk Turks (1071) pushed a number of Armenians to the southeast. There, the last Armenian Kingdom, Cilician Armenia, sometimes called Lesser Armenia, established its independence from the 42 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Byzantine Empire and lasted until 1375. The twelfth century, known as Armenia’s Silver Age, was a period of relative stability and cultural development. Yet, in the northwest, destruction was wrought as the Mongols under Genghis Khan (1236) and the Tartars led by Tamerlane (1387) swept in from central Asia. The period 1375- 1604 is referred to as the Dark Ages of Armenian History, as very few histories and cultural artifacts are found. The Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. With their capture of Constantinople in 1453, the Ottoman Turks made their presence in Anatolia known. Between 1512 and 1520, Sultan Selim the Grim doubled the size of the empire, capturing Cairo in 1516 and, thereby, establishing the Ottoman Empire as the premiere Empire in the world. As the Ottomans expanded eastward, the Armenians, once again, became subjects of a foreign power. As Christians in an Islamic state, Armenians were a “minority” in the sociological sense of the word: a group singled out for unequal treatment due to their physical and cultural characteristics. Ottoman common law created and regulated relations between Muslims and non-Muslims such that “‘tolerated infidels’ [were relegated to] a caste inferior to that of their fellow Moslem subjects” (Dadrian 1997:4). Thus, non-Muslims within the Ottoman Empire— primarily Armenians, Greeks, and Jews—had their own courts and prisons and were only allowed to enter those occupations considered unworthy of a devout Muslim, which included money lending, banking, and trade and commerce. In time, with much of the Empire’s business being conducted by non-Muslims, these minority 43 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. groups, particular the most numerous, the Armenians, became objects of resentment and hostility. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Armenia found itself in the middle of a power struggle between the Ottoman Turkish and Safavid Persian Empires. A 1639 treaty between the two regional powers created boundaries putting most of Armenia under Turkish control. By the late 1700’s, with a weakened Persia, Russia emerged as the new enemy of the Turks and expanded during the reign of Catherine the Great (1762-1796). The Russians defeated the Turks in 1774, signing the Treaty of Kuchuk Kainardji, which established the Russians as the protectors of the Christians within the Ottoman Empire. This marked the beginning of the end of Turkey as a major power. Over the next 100 years, Turkey would lose three more wars with Russia. During the nineteenth century, Russia continued to expand at the expense of Turkey and Persia. After Russia’s defeat of the Persians and the signing the Treaty of Gulistan in 1813, Armenians, for the first time in significant numbers, came under Russian rule. Turkey lost the war of 1828-29 that liberated Greece, the Crimean War of 1854-56, and the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78. These military operations were very expensive, and Turkey became heavily indebted to Europe. In 1875, Turkey defaulted on payment of interest for the first time. Turkey had been labeled “the sick man of Europe,” and dreams of its eventual partition among the European Powers and Russia became even more anticipated (Dadrian 1997). 44 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Armenian Question. On March 3, 1878, in the aftermath of the Russo- Turkish War of 1877-1878, the Treaty of San Stefano was signed, granting several Balkan states, including Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Montenegro, independence and, in Article 16, a Russian presence “in Armenia” to guarantee the reforms Turkey had promised during the Tanzimat (Reform) Period of 1839-1876. Due to the increasing distrust and suspicion between England and Russia, Lord Salisbury, the foreign secretary of England, demanded that a European Congress reconstitute the treaty. In the meantime, on June 4, 1878, England and Turkey signed the Cyprus Convention. In exchange for the island of Cyprus, this agreement assured Turkey that Britain would join in defense against future Russian aggression. The Congress of Berlin, convened on June 13, 1878, witnessed the emergence of the “Armenian Question” as an international issue, but the Armenian delegation's demands for moderate reform went unheeded. Article 61 of the Treaty of Berlin (July 13, 1878) forced the withdrawal of Russian troops from Turkey and entrusted the Sultan to periodically report to the European Powers regarding the improvements and reforms “in the provinces inhabited by Armenians” (Walker 1990). Sultan Abdul Hamid began to despise the Armenians for making their situation known to the European Powers, and conditions for both the elite and the peasant Armenians remained deplorable. Armenian villages were raided, Armenian merchants were robbed, and Armenians were dispossessed of their lands (Boumoutian 1994; Kurkjian 1958). In a note dated September 7, 1880, the six European Powers of Germany, Russia, Great Britain, Italy, France, and Austria-Hungary insisted on 45 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. immediate action regarding Article 61; however, the Sultan did nothing. Abdul Hamid knew that Britain was more interested in Cyprus and France in Tunisia and northern Africa. He also knew that the German chancellor Bismarck, and thus Austria-Hungary, would not intervene on behalf of the Armenians, and that Russia, with some disdain for England's forcible dissolution of the Treaty of San Stefano, would not act to expedite reforms for the Armenians. Hence, the plight of the Armenians worsened (Dadrian 1997; Kurkjian 1958). Immigration to the United States and the Armenian Genocide Pre-Genocide Immigration. While the earliest recorded immigrant to the United States is “Martin ye Armenian,” who came to the Jamestown Colony in 1618- 1619, it was not until the 1800s that a sizable number of Armenians came (R. Jendian 1985; Malcom 1919). Because the U.S. immigration records prior to 1899 classified immigrants according to geographical origin and not by ethnicity, it is impossible to have a precise total. Thus, Armenians, Greeks, Syrians, Jews, and Turks were all categorized as people from ‘Turkey in Europe.” Between 1834, “the accepted arrival year of the first Armenian immigrant in any sequential migration” (Mirak 1983:288) and 1868, 253 people from this category were admitted to the United States. Mirak (1983) estimates that 100 of these were Armenian. Due to an increase in emigration from Turkey, ‘Turkey in Asia” and “Armenia” were added as distinct categories for the period 1869-1890. Combined with the 981 immigrants of the latter category, 46 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Mirak estimates another 419 of the 4,212 immigrants designated as being from ‘Turkey in Asia” and ‘Turkey in Europe” to be Armenian. Thus, between 1834- 1890. “phase one” of Armenian emigration, an estimated 1,500 Armenians came to America. Many initially came as a result of the American missionary endeavors in Turkey, encouraged to seek education in the United States (Mirak 1983). Others ventured out as sojourners for business reasons, with intentions of returning when things back home settled down (Mirak 1965). However, the situation in the Ottoman Empire deteriorated further. Turkey did not implement reform, and the European Powers, due to their lack of cooperation and inherent suspicion of one another’s ulterior motives, failed to hold the Sultan accountable for the agreements of the Treaty of Berlin. As hopes for change were dashed, some Armenians in the empire began to organize their own political organizations (Nalbandian [1963] 1967). One contemporary of the Hamid era observed, “When oppression passes a certain limit and men become desperate, such revolutionary organization always appears. They are the fruit and not the cause of the existing state of things in Turkey ...” (“The Constantinople Massacre” 1896:458-459). The first, the Armenakan Party, appeared with a platform, central body, and an official publication in 1885. The Social Democrat Hunchakian Party, founded in 1887, espoused Marxist ideology and advocated revolution to change the existing social conditions in the eastern provinces. The third major party, the Armenian Revolutionary Party, or “Dashnaktsutiun,” 47 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. emerged in Russian Armenia in 1890. The increased revolutionary activity and rising Muslim-Christian tension encouraged sizable Armenian emigration. More Armenians entered the United States in 1891-92 (1,800) than in the entire fifty years prior (Mirak 1983). However, in June 1892, the Turkish government restricted Armenian emigration, yet an estimated 3,700 Armenians immigrated to America from 1893- 1895. Although having little support of Armenians at large, the revolutionary approach of these parties was viewed as a threat by the Ottoman Turkish government (Nalbandian [1963] 1967). Several events and activities of these Armenian political parties attempted, sometimes successfully, to raise European consciousness about the forgotten reforms promised to the Armenians of Turkey. For example, after the Demonstration of Bab Ali in Constantinople on September 19, 1895, in which the Hunchakian party leaders, members of the Armenakan party, and hundreds of demonstrators who attempted to present their “protest-demands" for civil rights to the Sultan were denied entrance, arrested, or even killed, the European Powers increased their pressure on the Sultan and he signed the Armenian Reform Program on October 17, 1895. Unfortunately, this, as earlier promises, was never implemented and Armenians continued to be persecuted. The occupation of the Ottoman Bank in Constantinople on August 14, 1896 by the Armenian Revolutionary Party was another attempt to coerce the European Powers to finally compel the Sultan to implement reforms. This event resulted in a three-day bloodbath, claiming the lives of 6,000 Armenian victims (Dadrian 1997). 48 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. In retaliation for revolutionary acts committed by some Armenians, a series of organized massacres took place between 1894 and 1896 during the rule of Sultan Abdul Hamid II, also known as the Red Sultan. Estimates of 200,000 to 300,000 Armenian men, women, and children, the overwhelming majority having nothing to do with the political organizations, were massacred, and hundreds of thousands were pillaged and plundered (Dadrian 1997; Nalbandian [1963] 1967). In 1897, the Sultan declared that “the Armenian question was closed” (quoted in Dadrian 1997:163). As a consequence of the terror that transpired, Armenian immigration to the United States from 1895-1898 swelled to 6,900 (Mirak 1983), bringing the total for “phase two” immigration (1891-1898) to 12,500. After the tum of the century, a political movement in favor of Pan-Turkism— the idea of establishing a giant Turkic state, extending from the easternmost tip of Asia Minor to Central Asia, uniting all the Turkic tribes—emerged and further threatened the non-Turkish peoples of the Empire (Dadrian 1997). However, when the Ittihad party—the Young Turks of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP)— seized control of the government in 1908, essentially removed Sultan Abdul Hamid II from power, and reinstated several earlier reforms, the citizens, including the minority groups of the Empire, rejoiced. Reform did occur, as Armenians were elected as Representatives to Parliament and were given the right to serve in the militia and to carry arms. Then, outbreaks reminiscent of past destruction were witnessed in April 1909, when nearly 30,000 Armenians were massacred in the Adana region. It was not clear who planned these attacks, but the CUP seemed to exhibit some degree of effort 49 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to determine the truth of the matter through court proceedings and even executions of individual wrongdoers (Walker 1990). Armenians, wary of the motivations and culprits behind the massacres, were still prepared to deal with the Young Turks. The signing of a five-point circular between the Armenian Revolutionary Party and the Young Turks in September of 1909 gave some hope, but the Central Committee of the CUP changed radically in 1910 and was now composed of several men in staunch support of Pan-Turkism. By the end of the year, the Young Turks, now dominated by a small inner circle, withdrew earlier promises of treating all the peoples of the empire as equals. It became clear that non-Muslim groups, especially the Armenians, were a major obstacle to creating a pan-Turkic state. Still, some Armenians hoped a peaceful resolution could be reached. In fact, from 1911-1913, some 8,000 Armenians fought on the side of the Ottoman army against the seceding Balkan states of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, and Montenegro (Young 1926). Between 1899 and 1914, in “phase three” of Armenian immigration to the United States, over 51,950 Armenians came, with nearly half of those (25,454) arriving during 1911-1914 (U.S. Commissioner General of Immigration 1899-1915). World War I and the Armenian Genocide. The Armenian Genocide (also known as “The Forgotten Genocide” and “The First Genocide of the Twentieth Century”), perpetrated by the Ittihad Party (Committee of Union and Progress) of Ottoman Turkey from 1915-1923, is the cornerstone event in modem Armenian 50 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. history. Of the two million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire at the time, roughly one million were massacred and another 500,000 dispersed throughout the world (Dadrian 1997). Of the remaining 500,000, roughly half are believed to have been forcibly Turkified (Islamized) or taken in and hidden by sympathetic Turkish and Kurdish families, and the other half were found in desolate conditions at the end of the war (Walker 1990). On August 2, 1914, seeing the opportunity to establish a pan-Turkic state through engaging in a war with Russia, Ottoman Turkey signed an agreement to join the Central Powers if Russia entered the war against Austria and Germany (Hovannisian 1967). The Turkish offensive against Russia was launched on December 25, 1914, but due to the harsh Caucasian winter, the Ottoman Third Army led by Enver Pasha experienced a bitter defeat (Walker 1990). On April 24, 1915, 235 leading Armenians—politicians, writers, educators, lawyers, etc.— were rounded up in Constantinople and exiled into the interior, never to be seen again (Hovannisian 1967). Within weeks, 2,345 such leaders were arrested and most of these, while a few did escape, were executed outright, without charge or trial (Dadrian 1997). April 24, commemorated annually by Armenians worldwide as a day of remembrance, remains a symbol of the beginning of the systematic extermination of the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire. The start of World War I in July 1914 presented “a suitable opportunity to resolve once and for all certain lingering domestic conflicts” and, in the words of Interior Minister Talat Pasha, “to thoroughly liquidate its internal foes, that is, the 51 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. indigenous Christians, without being thereby disturbed by foreign intervention” (quoted in Dadrian 1997:203,207). The final solution to the Armenian Question would eliminate any basis for reforms or intervention by the European Powers on behalf of the Armenians. The general procedure involved separating the Armenian regulars from the rest of the Ottoman army to be killed, entering the villages and removing the Armenian males to the outskirts for slaughter, and forcing the remaining women and children on death marches into the Syrian desert (Dadrian 1997:219-226). All of this, occurring under the circumstances of World War I, was disguised as necessary “deportations” of Armenians out of the “war zones” in the east. While deportations of the easternmost Armenians, who are closest to the Russian border and likely to fight alongside them, may make strategic sense, what sense can be made of “deporting” those Armenians in the interior? (Dadrian 1997:239-243) Immigration to America continued during this period. Although 7,785 Armenians are reported to have entered the United States in 1914, only 932 arrived in 1915, presumably because of the disastrous situation in Ottoman Turkey. In fact, during the primary years of the Genocide, 1915-1920, only 6,382 Armenians entered America. The year 1921 saw the largest number of Armenian immigrants to America of any given year— 10,212 (LaPiere 1930). This number dwindled to 2,249 in 1922 and totaled 10,923 from 1923-1931. The smaller number of immigrants entering during this latter period is directly a result of the nativist movement in the United States, embodied in the Immigration Act of 1924. This Act established immigration quotas for each country, allowing only 2% of the nationals enumerated by the U.S. 52 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Census of 1890 to enter this country (Tashjian [1947] 1970) and thereby guaranteeing that the majority of immigrants would come from Northern Europe. In total, between 1834-1931, 95,716 Armenians had arrived in the United States. Tashjian ([1947] 1970) estimates the total Armenian-American population in 1931 to be approximately 190,000. Immigration of Armenians to the United States after 1931 is virtually impossible to tally because immigration authorities registered immigrants as natives of the countries under the quotas of which they were entering the country (Tashjian [1947] 1970). Available data suggests that fewer than 3,500 entered between 1932 and 1949 (Minasian 1982). The number of Armenians arriving in America for each wave of immigration is shown in Table 3.0. TABLE 3.0 Number of Armenian Immigrants to the United States by Period Phase 1 (1834-1890) 1,500* Phase 2 (1891-1898) 12,500* Phase 3 (1899-1914) 51,950 Phase 4 (1915-1931) 29,766 Phase 5 (1932-1949) 3,500* TOTAL: 99,216* ^estimated Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The earliest immigrants had settled in the predominantly urban industrial cities of the Northeast, including New York, Providence (RI), Worcester (MA), and Boston (MA). However, a good number of them also came to Central California. According to the U.S. Census of 1920, 86.4% of the foreign-born Armenians in America resided in just eight states. Massachusetts (25%), California (19.1%), and New York (13.3%) were home to a combined 57.4% of the Armenian population (U.S. Census Reports 1920). 1970's Immigration from the Middle East. It was not until 1965 that the United States removed the national origin clause from immigration statutes. Combined with the liberalization of Soviet emigration policies and unrest in the Middle East (i.e., Lebanon and Iran), these events produced another period of sizable Armenian immigration. The Arab-Israeli Wars in 1967 and 1973 sparked the first round of emigration from the Middle East, followed by the Lebanese Civil War beginning in 1975 and the Iranian Revolution of 1978-79 consolidating the Islamic Republic of Iran (Bozorgmehr, Der-Martirosian, and Sabagh 1996). 1980’ s and 1990’ s Immigration from the form er Soviet Republic. While emigration from the Middle East slowed, Armenians from the Soviet Republic of Armenia increased. Taking advantage of detente and relaxed immigration restrictions, created principally for Russian Jews, some 80,000 Armenians came to North America during the 1970s and 1980s (Boumoutian 1994). The massive 54 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. destruction wrought in Armenia by the December 7, 1988 earthquake encouraged additional emigration. In the early 1990s, as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union and deteriorating economic conditions in Armenia due, in part, to a blockade by neighboring Azerbaijan in dispute over Armenian-populated Karabagh (an enclave within Azerbaijan), thousands more Armenians have made the United States, specifically California, their home. In total, between 1965 and 1995, “tens of thousands of Armenians have been admitted, the overwhelming majority disembarking at the Los Angeles A irport.... Los Angeles [had] become the Western Hemisphere’s ‘Armenian metropolis’” (Minasian 1982). Indeed, the number of Armenians in Los Angeles nearly quintupled from 18,000 in 1970 to 115,000 in 1990 (Bozorgmehr, Der-Martirosian, and Sabagh 1996). Southern California, as a region, now contains the largest Armenian population (an estimated 250,000) outside Armenia (Boumoutian 1994; Der-Martirosian, Sabagh, and Bozorgmehr 1993). In the late 1990s, the emigration from Armenia has only increased due to the continued erosion of economic conditions. The economic transition to capitalism has been and continues to be a struggle for developing countries in the new global economy. Worldwide Population and Current Political Situation. On September 21, 1991, the people of Armenia voted unanimously for the formation of an independent democratic nation. Today, the Republic of Armenia exists as a free and independent state, occupying a mere portion— 11,505 square miles, less than double the size of Fresno County, California—of its former territory. Currently, the Armenian 55 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. population in the world is estimated to be seven million, with approximately half residing in the Republic of Armenia (although this number has been decreasing) and half in the Diaspora (cf. Avakian 1998; Mouradian 1990:142,169; Ordjanian 1991; Takooshian 1986-87). Armenag Voskanian, in a survey appearing in the September 1985 issue of Leraper, a social sciences monthly published by the Academy of Sciences in Yerevan, Armenia, estimates that Armenians are dispersed among 84 countries: 26 countries in Europe, 26 in Asia, 20 in Africa, 10 in the Americas, and in Australia and New Zealand. Ten countries—United States of America (800,000), France (350,000), Lebanon (250,000), Iran (220,000), Syria (120,000), Argentina (85.000), Canada (70,000), Turkey (65,000), Australia (30,000), and Bulgaria (25.000)— were said to account for 92% of the total 2,225,000 Armenians residing outside the Soviet Union in 1985 (see The Armenian Reporter, February 20, 1986, p. 4). Ordjanian (1991), who compiled and compared a number of sources, estimates that the following ten countries accounted for 91% of the total 3,084,000 diasporan Armenians in 1989: United States of America (600,000), Azerbaijan (475,000), Republic of Georgia (450,000), Russia (365,000), France (275,000), Lebanon (150.000), Iran (150,000), Syria (150,000), Canada (100,000), and Argentina (75.000). Due to the failure of census enumerators of the governments of nation states to distinguish respondents by ethnic ancestry and the paucity of formally collected census statistics on the Armenian population, estimates by respected scholars are often relied upon. More recent estimates of the number of people of Armenian descent in the United States range between 800,000 to 1,250,000, with 56 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 300,000 to 400,000 believed to reside in California (Avakian 1998; Boumoutian 1994). However, the 1990 Census, considered to have undercounted many ethnic groups (Lieberson and Waters 1988; cf. Magocsi 1987; U.S. Bureau of the Census 1991), enumerated only 308,000 Americans reporting to be of Armenian ancestry. Armenians in the Central San Joaquin Valley o f California The Central San Joaquin Valley is located between Los Angeles and San Francisco, California and includes Fresno, Kings, Madera, and Tulare Counties. Fresno County (incorporated April 19, 1856), the largest of the four counties with 5,963.2 square miles and a 1990 population of 667,490 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990), is known as one of the nation’s agricultural leaders. The majority of the estimated 40,000-50,000 people of Armenian descent living in the Central San Joaquin Valley reside in the cities of Caruthers, Clovis, Coalinga, Del Rey, Easton. Fowler, Fresno. Kerman, Kingsburg, La ton, Mendota, Parlier, Sanger, Selma, and Reedley among others. Kings County (incorporated March 22, 1893), the southwestemmost and geographically smallest of the four counties with 1,389.5 square miles, had a 1990 population of 101,469 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990). This county comprises the cities of Armona, A venal, Hanford, Kettleman City, Lemoore, and Stratford. Madera County (incorporated March 11, 1893), the northernmost and least populated of the four counties with a 1990 population of 88,090 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990), has 57 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. a land area of 2,138.4 square miles and is known as ‘T he Gateway to Yosemite.” The county consists of the cities of Ahwahnee, Bass Lake, Chowchilla, Coarsegold, Madera, North Fork, O’Neals, Oakhurst, and Raymond. Tulare County (incorporated April 20, 1852), the southeastemmost and second largest of the four counties with 4,824.3 square miles and a 1990 population of 311,921 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990), is one of the country’s largest milk and dairy producing and processing areas. The county is home to the second largest number of Armenian-Americans in the Central San Joaquin Valley and includes the cities of Corcoran, Cutler, Dinuba, Earlimart, Exeter, Farmersville, Goshen, Lindsay, Orosi, Pixley, Porterville, Strathmore, Tulare, Visalia, and Yettem among others. The Early Settlers. The first Armenian to tour Fresno, California was Frank (formerly, Mardiros Yanikian) Normart (literally, “New Man” in Armenian), visiting from the East Coast in 1874. Finding Fresno initially too small for him, he returned to Philadelphia in 1876 but eventually settled in Fresno in 1885 (Zenian 1996; Bulbulian 2000). The Seropian brothers were the first Armenians to settle in Fresno. Hagop Seropian, who had emigrated from Turkish Armenia in the early 1870s to Worcester, Massachusetts, arrived with his brother Garabed in 1881 (Davidian 1965). The following spring, the three younger Seropians joined them and established a large fruit-packing business in Fresno. At the time, the local population was a mere 1,000, and the brothers wrote back letters praising the climate and the fruitful and available land. They described Fresno as the “Garden of Eden,” a “land of unrealized 58 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. opportunity,” “a place where things grow without cultivation,” including “watermelons as large as boats and eggplants weighing up to nine or ten pounds” (Davidian 1965:3; Minasian 1982:1). Fresno County, which lies in the San Joaquin Valley of Central California and is bounded by the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers, which flow from the snowcapped Sierra Nevada Mountains on the east, reminded them of the “Armenian heartlands, watered and drained by the Tigris and Euphrates and where the sun rose each morning over the twin peaks of Mount Ararat” (quoted in Mirak 1983:112). These letters persuaded several Armenian immigrants to come to Fresno in 1882 and 1883, including the “Forty Armenians from Marzovan,” the Seropians’ hometown in Turkey (Khungian 1905; Bulbulian 2000). This group largely came as complete family units (including husbands, wives, and children), differing from those immigrants to follow. The Shaping o f the “ Armenian Colony" in Fresno County. The Armenian community in Fresno began taking shape in 1884. On January 6, 1884, Jonathan Sinanian became the first Armenian to be bom in Fresno, the son of Mesrop Sinanian and Elmas Azhderian Sinanian (Davidian 1965). On December 2, 1885, Moses J. Church, a local non-Armenian benefactor and founder of Fresno Canal and Irrigation Company, granted a parcel of land at Belmont and Hughes Avenues to the Armenian community upon which the Ararat Cemetery was built (Greer 1995). “For more than a century, the Ararat Cemetery was the only Armenian cemetery outside of Armenia or the Middle E a st...” (Bulbulian 2000:220). 59 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Between 1885 and 1890, a small but constant stream of Armenians arrived, most of whom came after bad experiences in the industrial cities in the East (LaPiere 1930). According to a census taken in 1894, Armenians in Fresno County numbered 360 (Wallis [1919] 1965:36). In response to the refusal of non-Armenian congregations to admit even same-Protestant denomination Armenians to their fold, the Armenian religious began to construct their own edifices (LaPiere 1930; Mirak 1983). The Armenian Presbyterian Church was established in 1897 and the congregation built an edifice in 1901. The year 1898 marked the establishment of the Armenian National Church in America (claimed 74% of Armenian religious adherents in America in 1906 [U.S. Census of Religious Bodies 1916]). The primate of this newly established diocese, under the jurisdiction of the Holy Mother See of Etchmiadzin in Armenia, visited Fresno on October 14, 1900 to consecrate Holy Trinity Armenian Apostolic (Orthodox) Church, the first built in the Western United States and second in the nation. Pilgrim Armenian Congregational Church was established in 1901. By 1900, 500 Armenians lived in Fresno County, accounting for 8% of the Armenians in the United States (LaPiere 1930). Armenian newspapers began to be published (the oldest of which Kaghakatzi, ‘The Citizen,” appeared on October 7, 1902 and in 1923 became known as Nor Or, “New Day”), and cultural community centers were constructed (Minasian 1982). In 1922, Valley Bakery, California’s first Armenian bakery was established in “Little Armenia” (a.k.a. “Armenian Town”) where it still exists today, operated by Janet and Agnes Saghatelian, descendants of the founder, Gazair Saghatelian. 60 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Fresno County became home to a number of new immigrant groups including “Russians ... groups of Swedes, Danes, Yugo-Slavs, Greeks, Italians, East Indians, Armenians, and even Basques ... [and] in later years a considerable number of Japanese ... [and] thousands of [Mexicans] came to the district ... ” (LaPiere 1930:144). Based on the Fresno County Directory for 1901, LaPiere (1930) estimates a population of at least 1,000 Armenians, which doubled in the first five years of this century. The majority of these settled in the city of Fresno. By 1910, the number of people of Armenian descent in California grew to 4,441. LaPiere (1930) notes that at least 85% (3,789) had resided in Fresno County (accounting for 5% of the total Fresno population, and 12% of the Armenian population in the United States). The Armenians who settled in Fresno were unlike its other ethnic groups in two significant respects: 1) many came from commercial backgrounds and 2) many arrived with capital (Mirak 1983). While many Armenians who migrated to Fresno had capital and were able to purchase land, others were manual laborers in the vineyards or packinghouses. “Of the 58,456 adult males and unaccompanied women and boys who arrived between 1898 and 1928, over 78% had less than $50 in their possession” (LaPiere 1930). Still, “As a group, Armenians in the San Joaquin Valley by 1908 held 25,000 acres of land, owning about three-fifths of the total” (Mirak 1983:119). By 1920, the 10,112 Armenians in California accounted for 19.1% of the Armenians in the United States (second only to the state of Massachusetts with 13,204) and 0.6% of the total population of the state (the second highest concentration 61 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of Armenians in any state after Rhode Island with 0.7%). Eighty-seven percent (8,783) of these lived in Fresno County, accounting for 16% of the Armenians in America, almost 7% of the total Fresno population, and 25% of the county’s total foreign-born population (LaPiere 1930; Mirak 1983). As a result of restrictive land covenants forcing them to move east, by 1920, 55% of the Valley Armenian population lived outside the limits of Fresno City. The most populous areas, in order of estimated size, were Fowler, Yettem (“Eden,” the only settlement in America that was originally established [1901] and inhabited by Armenians [Minasian 1982]), Kingsburg, Parlier, Selma, Reedley, Dinuba, Turlock, Del Rey, Visalia, and Tulare (Wallis [1919] 1965). The Armenian population of Fresno actually decreased to 7,919, due to emigration to other parts of California where socio-economic conditions were more acceptable (LaPiere 1930). By 1930, Los Angeles had surpassed Fresno County as the largest Armenian colony in California (Minasian 1982). Prejudice and Discrimination. The reception of the Armenians in Fresno stands in stark contrast to the general attitude of indifference towards Armenian immigrants in America. Here they were met with both prejudice (i.e., negative attitudes) and discrimination (i.e., acts denying them certain privileges or rights). “Racial prejudice and discrimination in Fresno County were quite strong and longer- lasting than in any other community in the United States” (Minasian 1982:9). A number of factors may account for this: 1) the rapid and unrelenting pace of Armenian immigration combined with their clustering together in the city’s 62 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. southwestern area (just south of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks); 2) their relative economic success (although less than 10% of the population, Armenians accounted for 25% of the county’s growers and owned 40% of the county’s raisin acreage by 1930) (R. Jendian 1985); and 3) their differences in skin color, dress, and language (U.S. Immigration Commission 1907-1910). Discrimination in the form of restrictive land covenants was common and served to preserve the existence of “Little Armenia” (whose geographical center was in the 300 block of G Street) and keep the Armenians from moving north into the developing parts of town. For example, selling property in a new quarter of the district to Armenians was considered to “impair very seriously the value of nearby property” (U.S. Immigration Commission 1907-1910:643). As quoted in Zenian (1996:12): One such document issued by the San Joaquin Abstract Company, while not naming the Armenians, clearly stipulates that “restrictions are provided in the deed from Delfina E. Cooper to John Miller, dated April 3, 1911, and recorded in volume 478 of Deeds, on page 6” includes a provision “not to sell or lease the said property or any part thereof ... to any person bom in the Turkish Empire nor any lineal descendant of such person” to safeguard property values. Further institutional discrimination was attempted to be made into law with the introduction in January 1909 of the “Alien Land Bill” by Assemblyman A.M. Drew of Fresno, which stipulated that “an alien acquiring title to lands was given five years to become a citizen. If he failed to do so, he was required to sell his holdings to a citizen. Also, no alien could lease land for longer than one year” (Mirak 1983:283). This bill, which was defeated due to the extensive lobbying of President Theodore Roosevelt and California Governor James Gillett, was chiefly directed against the 63 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Japanese but would have seriously affected Armenians as well. Also in 1909, the right of Armenians to become naturalized citizens was challenged by the U.S. Bureau of Naturalization on the basis that Armenians were “Asiatics” and not “free white persons.” In December of 1909, after hearing expert testimony from anthropologist Franz Boas, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Massachusetts ruled that Armenians belonged to the “white or Caucasian race” (Mirak 1983:281-282). This issue of citizenship eligibility was again raised and squashed in 1924 in the case of United States vs. Cartozian. To gauge anti-Armenian sentiment, LaPiere (1930) asked non-Armenian residents of Fresno County about their attitudes towards Armenians. Of the 474 who responded to the question, “What do you find are the principal characteristics of Armenians?” 1,119 derogatory traits were given, including “dishonest” (16%), “undependable” (12%), “arrogant” (11%), “greedy” (9.5%), and tricky (9%). Only 198 positive comments were provided, many of which were “two-edged” (i.e., given after a negative comment), including “hard working” (17%) and “ambitious” (14%). Armenians were also believed to rely heavily on community welfare and be responsible for most crimes in the county—claims that were not substantiated by LaPiere’s (1930) analysis of county documents. When asked what other race are the Armenians most like, 50% of the 553 responses gave the single word, “Jews,” 22% stated like no other race, 16% said like Turks and other Orientals, and a small percentage placed them with Italians, Mexicans, and “Negroes.” Finally, employing Robert Park’s “Scale of Tolerance,” or “social distance,” LaPiere (1930) asked 64 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. whether respondents would admit Armenians to: a) close kinship by marriage (92.5% said no), b) club as personal chum (84% no), c) employment in your occupation (64% no), d) street as neighbor (62.4% no), e) playmates for your children (61% no), f) citizenship in this country (50.9% no), g) membership in your church (42.5% no), and h) exclude from country (52.7% yes). Clear external boundaries surrounding the Armenian ethnic group existed in Fresno County in 1930. In practice, Armenians were routinely denied entry as members of local country clubs, religious congregations, college sororities and fraternities, sports groups, and other local groups such as Woodsmen, Elks, and Lion’s clubs (Mirak 1983). The Trex (Triple X) Fraternity was founded in 1918 by eight Armenians who, prohibited from joining local school fraternities and community social clubs, set a goal of recruiting thirty (Roman numeral XXX) fellow Armenian men (Minasian 1982). Armenians were also “discouraged” from seeking employment in the public sectors, including police and fire departments, post offices, public schools, and libraries. Not until 1921 was there a single teacher in Fresno public schools of Armenian descent (Minasian 1982). The first Armenian to be named a principal in Fresno Unified School District, Seth Atamian, received his position in 1967. Prejudice and discrimination were nothing new to Armenians who had been living as subjects of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years. In response to the anti-Armenian sentiment in the community, the Armenians did little. “On the contrary, writers in Asbarez and the East Coast Armenian language papers apologetically urged the immigrants to rid themselves of their Old World habits in 65 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. order to convince the natives of their ability to become assimilated as ‘good Americans’” (Mirak 1983:146). This self-abrogating view, collaborating with the desire of the Armenian leaders to achieve some improvement in immigrant conditions, contributed to the assimilation of Fresno Armenians. The insults and shame received in school increased these feelings of inadequacy and self-contempt. Author William Saroyan, bom in Fresno in 1906, entered Emerson School in 1914 and later recalled: The kids of immigrants ... are quickly made aware of a number of attitudes held by others about them, mainly that they are not the equal of Americans ... . First there was a nickname for each group that amounted to an insult, not so much because of the nickname itself, but for the contempt with which it was frequently flung at a member of the group not only by angered members of other groups, but also by adults and teachers themselves. It was so bad that simply to refer to a boy by his nationality, as an Armenian, for instance, became the equivalent of an expression of contempt and, of course, an insult. ... It was soon so undesirable to be what you were that many boys and girls wished to God they were something else, and even tried to pretend that they were actually not Armenian, for instance, but Persian. Or they couldn't wait to get out of school, and out of town, so they could forget what an unfortunate thing it was to be who they were. (1969:84-85) Armenians in Fresno were referred to as “Starving Armenians,” “Dirty Armenians,” and “Fresno Indians” (Bulbulian 2000; Henry 1978), and discrimination against them in Fresno continued through the 1940s. A deed for a specific residential property, recorded on May 18, 1944 at the request of the San Joaquin Abstract and Title Company in Fresno County included a clause that stipulated the following: Neither said premise, nor any part thereof, shall be used in any manner whatsoever or occupied by any Negro, Chinese, Japanese, Hindu, Armenian, Asiatic or native of the Turkish Empire, or descendant of the above named persons, or anyone not of the white or Caucasian race, provided, however, that such a person may be employed by a resident upon said property as a 66 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. servant for such resident (Common Ground 1944-1945; quoted in Minasian 1972a:64). It was not until Shelly vs. Kramer in 1948 that the Supreme Court declared the restrictive covenants unconstitutional (Minasian 1972b). Even still, de facto discrimination persisted for some time in Fresno. These socio-historical circumstances are essential in any effort to understand and document the processes of assimilation and dissimilation of Armenians in the Central San Joaquin Valley. Armenian Culture and Local Social Structure. The family unit is a primary socializing agent, playing a major role in transmitting ethnic identity, values, and traditions. While sociologists recognize that social class is the primary variable that contributes to our understanding of variations in family life and kinship structures, ethnicity also contributes in this regard (Schneider 1980). The contemporary Armenian-American families, in general, do not differ greatly from American families in structure or function. Emphases on certain values, norms, and behaviors have survived in the later generations (Bakalian 1993). The Armenian family, prior to 1915, has been described as patriarchal, patrilineal, patrilocal, and patrinomial (LaPiere 1930; Mazian 1983, 1984; Nelson 1953; Villa and Matossian 1982). Marriages were arranged by the parents of the bride and groom—who often had extremely limited prior contact—and the wedding was paid for by the groom’s family. Upon marriage, the couple would become a part of the groom’s extended family household, in which fathers and sons, along with their wives and unmarried 67 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. daughters, lived under one roof (Bamburger 1986-87). The eldest male held the power and was granted the most authority. Ethnic identity was passed through the father. Family honor was sacred and female members of the family were to be guarded from relationships with men (Bamburger 1986-87). Nelson (1953) describes the distinguishing characteristics of three generations of Armenian-American families in Fresno. Children were strictly disciplined and expected to be obedient to their parents. Elders occupied a status of high regard. Families were close-knit and often did things together as a group, such as visiting other Armenian families. The family’s reputation was not to be discredited. While the sexes were segregated and initially marriages were arranged, with successive generations, chaperoned and casual dating became commonplace. Residential and social segregation in Fresno contributed to a low intermarriage rate. LaPiere noted only eleven intermarriages in six one-year periods (1905, 1910, 1915, 1920, 1925, and 1927) and estimated the rate between 1904 and 1928 to be 3.4%. Nelson (1953) did find intermarriage to be 50% higher among Protestant Armenians compared to Apostolic (Orthodox) Armenians; he explained the difference, in part, to be due to the higher priority given to Armenian language use in the home among Apostolic families. He also found a decline in male power that he and others have attributed to the elimination of a large proportion of the Armenian male population during the Genocide (Bamburger 1986-87; Nelson 1953). Presently, the Armenian-American family is becoming more egalitarian, neolocal in residence, nuclear in structure, and ethnically defined based on both spouses’ ancestries (Bakalian 1993). Yet, as 68 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Bakalian (1993) notes, the contemporary Armenian-American family remains “close- knit” and maintains a “strong sense of family duty (bardaganutiun) and a continuing concern for family solidarity” (Bamburger 1986-87:78). A more recent survey of California Armenians was conducted by Der- Karabetian and Der-Karabetian (1981), sponsored by The Armenian Assembly California Council and Resource Center. This study sought to describe the demographics, ethnically-oriented behavior, and ethnically-relevant attitudes and opinions of Armenian-Americans in California. A 30-item questionnaire was mailed to a sample of 2,000 addresses. Of these, 1,500 were randomly selected from a list of approximately 14,000 addresses in the 1981 Armenian Directory compiled by the Uniart Corporation for the Southern California region. The remaining 500 were randomly selected from northern and central California lists of 3,000 addresses each. Of the 2,000 mailed, 272 (14%) were returned to sender with no forwarding address, leaving a sample of 1,728. Three hundred had been completed and returned, for a response rate of 17%. Despite this relatively low return rate, the authors claim the sample represents a balanced cross-section of the Armenian-American community in California. The demographic analysis revealed that 36% were U.S.-born, 32% had immigrated more than 10 years ago, and 31% were recent immigrants. Forty-five percent of the sample were 39 years and younger. Income and education categories were equally balanced. The relevant primary findings of this study were that generational differences were observed in ethnically oriented behaviors and attitudes. In defining Armenian identity, the native bom emphasized Armenian parentage and 69 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. identifying with Armenian people while the immigrant groups ranked speaking Armenian as the most important factor. Lack of unity and loss of the Armenian language were identified as the most important problems facing the community. A brief review of the number, types, and year founded of Armenian organizations and institutions in the Central San Joaquin Valley provides a picture of this community’s social structure. At present, there are eight fully established churches, five of them Armenian Apostolic Orthodox and three Protestant. St. Gregory (Fowler, 1907), St. Mary (Yettem, 1909), St. Paul (Fresno, 1940), and St. Sahag-Mesrob (Reedley, 1923) belong to the Western Diocese of the Armenian Church of North America and Holy Trinity (Fresno, 1900) is of the Western Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America. First Armenian Presbyterian Church (Fresno, 1897) and Pilgrim Armenian Congregational Church (Fresno, 1901) are both part of the Armenian Evangelical Union of North America. The other Protestant church in Fresno, the United Armenian Evangelical Church (1991), is the result of the merging of the congregations of the Armenian Full Gospel Church of God (1941) and the Armenian Evangelical Brethren Church (1948). In addition, there are numerous compatriotic, fraternal, social, educational, political, and benevolent organizations, including: Ani Guild of the Armenian Home (Fresno, 1967), Ararat Cemetery Association (Fresno, 1885), Arax Armenian Dancers (Fresno, 1976), Armenian- American Citizens League (Fresno, 1931), Armenian Christian Women (Fresno, 1979), Armenian Community School of Fresno (1977), Armenian Democratic Liberal Organization (Fresno, 1914), Armenian General Benevolent Union (Fresno and 70 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tulare chapters, 1910 and 1911), Armenian National Committee (Fresno, 1970), Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Fresno, 1901), Armenian Relief Society (Fresno, 1927), Armenian Students Organization at California State University, Fresno (Fresno, 1974), Armenian Studies Program at California State University, Fresno (1977; Haig and Isabel Berberian Endowed Chair established in 1988, one of only twelve such chairs in the United States), Armenian Youth Federation (Fresno, 1934), California Armenian Home (Fresno, 1952), Daughters of Vartan (Fresno, 1941), Hamaskayin Cultural Association (Fresno, 1981), Homenetmen (Fresno, 1974), Knights of Vartan (Fresno, 1918), Tekeyan Cultural Association (Fresno, 1990), and Trex Fraternity (Fresno Chapter, 1918; Selma Chapter, 1933; Sequoia Chapter, 1938) (A. Jendian 1985). While all three of the Armenian newspapers that were founded in Fresno have relocated to the new “Armenian colony” of Los Angeles, Hye Sharzhoom, published four times a year by the Armenian Students Organization at California State University, Fresno, continues to be the only student-based Armenian publication in the country. Additional local media include the Fresno Armenian Radio Hour and Hye Talk, a half-hour television show produced by the Armenian Studies Program and hosted by Barlow Der Mugrdechian (the latter is not currently in production). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER FOUR LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES Ethnicity, Ethnic Group, Ethnic Identity ‘The word ‘ethnic’ derives via Latin from the Greek ethnikos, the adjectival form of ethnos, a nation or race” (Peterson 1980:242). Originally used in English to denote an “outsider,” “not Christian or Jewish, pagan, heathen,” this term did not really become popular until the 1960s as it was broadened to refer to any group’s cultural characteristics and political structures (Peterson 1980). Although W. Lloyd Warner first applied the term “ethnicity” to groups of immigrant descent in 1941 (Sollors 1989), that word was not to be found in most English dictionaries until the 1960s (Glazer and Moynihan 1975:1). In social research, the concepts of ethnicity, ethnic group, and ethnic identity are often ambiguous. Ethnicity has been used to refer to characteristics of both an ethnic group as a whole (Glazer and Moynihan 1975) and individual members of an ethnic group (Burkey 1978:6-9). Isajiw (1974) identified twenty-seven different definitions that have been used for the term ethnic group (cf. Isajiw 1994). Ethnic identity may be regarded by some people as an objective process, determined by biological heritage or “bloodline,” while to most social scientists, it is largely seen as rather subjective and unstable (Barth 1969; Okamura 1981; Waters 1990). “Ethnic 72 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. definitions and boundaries are social constructs that periodically change; they are not self-evident, absolute realities” (Jaret 1995:83). In the theoretical tradition of W.I. Thomas (1928:572), “if people define themselves (or are defined by others) as an ethnic group, then they are an ethnic group” (quoted in Marger 1985:7). This assumes that the belief in a common origin generates a feeling of commitment to and identification with the group. The microsociological and macrosociological perspectives with regard to ethnicity must be clearly articulated. Assimilation research may be oriented to a microsociological view, emphasizing the character of an individual's primary-group affiliations or self-identification, or to a macrosociological view, focusing on the larger social processes such as the dynamics of ethnic boundaries. Group and individual assimilation are often interdependent, but clearly some degree of independence exists between these two variables. “For example, individuals may be structurally assimilated, but prejudice and discrimination can still be widespread” (Alba and Nee 1997:830). Alba and Nee (1997) argue that a theory of assimilation must move in the direction of integrating the microsociological changes in individual characteristics with the macrosociological shifts in ethnic group boundaries. Often in the earlier anthropological literature, an ethnic group was defined as a culture-bearing group (Barth 1969; cf. Narroll 1964). However, this emphasis on the sharing of fundamental cultural values, attitudes, behaviors, and styles is problematic due to the traits being influenced by ecological effects—that is, external circumstances may require particular forms of behavior that any group of people 73 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. would surely adopt for survival. For example, in one study of central Norwegian mountain farmers and lowland peasants, Blom (1969) argued that the respective character types—the gambling, artistic, ruffian highlander and the sturdy, mild lowlander—resulted from their contrasting environments. While the mountain peasant is constantly on the move, exploiting large areas of land, the lowland peasant lives a more stable life tied to the farm. These overt characteristics are likely co determined by ecology and transmitted culture. Furthermore, human culture itself is a dynamic, evolving process. “Culture that is living must grow; it must adapt itself to changing circumstances; it must develop” (Meguerian 1981:7). “Whatever stays truly always and everywhere the same stays null and dead. What exists and lives struggles to go on doing so and its struggle is its change. A living culture is a changing culture ...” (Kallen 1956:55). With a cultural definition of ethnicity, individuals are classified as part of an ethnic group on the basis of the particular traits they exhibit and “differences between groups become differences in trait inventories; the attention is drawn to the analysis of cultures, not of ethnic organization” (Barth 1969:12). As Constantinou and Harvey (1985) and others have shown, ethnicity can be judged objectively for each individual from a composite of selected attributes (e.g., language, church membership, social group membership, self identification, attitudes, cooking, endogamy, and attending cultural events). In such research, group members are described as exhibiting a high, moderate, or low degree of ethnicity. One concern with this “objective” approach is the issue of which ethnic cultural traits are used or given the most weight (Jaret 1995). 74 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. On the contrary, as ethnic groups come to be seen as a form of social organization, the characteristic of self ascription and ascription by others becomes the focus of social scientific research (cf. Warner and Srole 1945:28). Although “identities can be inherited, chosen, assigned, or merely inferred from some bit of evidence” (Yinger 1994:141), ascription alone is sometimes insufficient, as some ethnic identities must be achieved and maintained by behavior or ethnic “signaling.” “Adequate performance in an identity is much more rigorously judged within a group than it is by outsiders” (Royce 1982:187). For example, while the Census Bureau or some social scientists might be content with the response that “I a m and my ancestors w ere ,” insiders are more likely to challenge identity if one is lacking ethnic knowledge, unable to speak the ethnic language, or not “signaling” properly. Boundaries established both by the group and by those outside the group serve to define the nature and continuity of an ethnic group (Barth 1969). The cultural features that signal the boundary may change, and the cultural characteristics of the members may likewise be transformed, indeed, even the organizational form of the group may change—yet the fact of continuing dichotomization between members and outsiders allows us to specify the nature of continuity and investigate the changing cultural form and content. (Barth 1969:14) Noting the interaction between micro (individual) and mezzo (group or community) levels, Breton (1964) hypothesized about the influence an ethnic community’s institutional completeness— the establishment of schools, religion, or clubs, and its ability to maintain group boundaries—has on its members’ likelihood to assimilate. The supply-side of ethnicity, the group or community context, seems to 75 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. play a significant role in terms of individual ethnicity (Portes and Rumbaut 1996). As Alba and Nee (1997:834) have suggested, If at the community level the opportunities to express ethnicity are meager or socially inappropriate, the intent to maintain ethnicity, assuming it exists, may be thwarted or transformed. The desire to find ethnic modes of behavior and expression, then, is likely to succeed where the supply-side of ethnicity is fairly rich in possibility. General Dimensions o f Ethnicity Ethnicity is often treated as an umbrella term, encompassing discrete concepts, such as ethnic identity, ethnic loyalty and solidarity, ethnic boundaries, ethnic culture, ethnic group, ethnic conflict, as well as the processes of acculturation and assimilation (Alba 1990:17; Burgess 1978:266; De Vos and Romanucci-Ross 1975; Keefe 1992:35; Sprott 1994:315). However, I find the distinction between ethnicity and ethnic identity by Phinney and Rotheram (1987:13) to be helpful. For them, “ethnicity refers to group patterns and ethnic identity refers to the individual's acquisition of group patterns." Still, ethnic identity can be seen as a dimension of ethnicity since it is derived, at least in part, from membership in an ethnic group (Isajiw 1990). As a broad concept, ethnic identity is seen as composed of “ethnic awareness (the understanding of one's own and other groups), ethnic self-identification (the label used for one’s own group), ethnic attitudes (feelings about [one’s] own and other groups), and ethnic behaviors (behavior patterns specific to an ethnic group)” 76 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (Phinney and Rotheram 1987:13). From their factor analyses of four years of quantitative and qualitative data on Chicano ethnicity collected in the mid-1970s, Keefe and Padilla (1987) extracted three statistical dimensions of ethnicity: cultural awareness (reflecting familiarity with ethnic people, culture, and language use—a “traditional” cultural orientation), ethnic loyalty (measuring attitudes and feelings regarding ethnic culture, people of similar ethnic descent, and ethnic discrimination), and ethnic social orientation (reflecting one’s degree of intra-ethnic social networks and food preferences). While cultural awareness was found to be quickly lost beyond the immigrant generation, ethnic loyalty and ethnic social orientation appeared to decrease slightly but remain relatively stable through the fourth generation. In subsequent research on Appalachian ethnicity, Keefe, Reck, and Reck (1983) refined these dimensions of ethnicity and labeled them as cultural, symbolic, and structural ethnicity, respectively. Keefe, Reck, and Reck (1989) identified three factors contributing to ethnicity among the Appalachian and non-Appalachians, which they call cultural affiliation, symbolic attachment, and ethnic association. More recently, in an attempt to integrate empirical findings from her research on Chicanos and Appalachians in the United States, Keefe (1992) has labeled the three distinct, yet interrelated constructs noted above as ethnic culture, ethnic identity, and ethnic group membership. While ethnic culture is noted as the most substantial component of ethnicity for the immigrant generation, ethnic identity and ethnic group membership are more significant for later generation white ethnics. Later generations, as they are more and more removed from the immigrant generation, exhibit less cultural 77 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. distinction in terms of ethnic boundaries, interest groups, and customs. The voluntary affiliation that remains is thought to evolve into “an ethnicity of last resort” (Gans 1979:1). The family figures most prominently in the individual’s initial identification with an ethnic group. ‘T he family is, of course, the first social group in which an individual becomes incorporated, and the parents’ ethnic identification and the sense of ethnic attachment fostered during childrearing are significant in the formation of the individual’s ethnic group identity” (Keefe 1992:39). Keefe (1992) advocates that future research investigate the role of family member interaction and child-rearing strategies in sustaining social group cohesion through the processes of ethnic identity and affiliation. In support of this position, Mindel, Habenstein, and Wright (1988:8) contend that “the maintenance of ethnic identification ultimately rests on the ability of the family to socialize its members into the ethnic culture and thus to ... control, perhaps program, future behavior.” Isajiw (1990:88) echoes a similar hypothesis about the role of the family when he suggests that “each consecutive generation’s retention of ethnic identity depends more on factors related to the family than to the ethnic community as a whole.” However, noting Berger and Luckmann’s (1967:137) comment that “Socialization is never total and never finished,” Helsel (1993:78) reminds us that “individuals are repeatedly socialized into new and different roles; identities are in lifelong process of transformation.” Unfortunately, much of the social science research on ethnic identity has treated it as “a static concept with little 78 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. concern for the processes underlying the development and change'’ (Phinney and Rotheram 1987:166). Views o f the Basic Nature o f Ethnicity From my review of the literature, I have found three predominant views of the basic nature of ethnicity: primordial, political-economic, and rational-choice. The Primordial View. The primordial view characterizes ethnicity as a primal bond or need for connection with one’s roots (Geertz 1963; Isaacs 1975) or, as Shils (1967:282) explained, “man’s need to be in contact with the point and moment of his origin and to experience a sense of affinity with those who share that origin.” A few adherents of this view contend that ethnicity is part of our human nature, an instinctive, genetic response, propelling us to prefer and aid people most like us (Gordon 1978; Van den Berghe 1978, 1981). This need, if it exists, is thought to be especially intense for people in highly individualistic cultures (Isaacs 1975). Many, and perhaps most, social scientists of ethnicity reject much, if not all, of this perspective (Jaret 1995:86). Bonacich (1980) provides a critique of the primordial view of ethnicity, citing three areas of concern. First, if ethnicity is a “primal” bond, naturally occurring among people of similar background, how can there be such variance in the salience of ethnic identity? Second, if the bond encourages a sense of helpfulness, acceptance, 79 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and loyalty to people of the same background, how does one account for the conflict and antagonism within most ethnic groups? Finally, if the need is to be connected with our ancestral origins, why is the identification with relatively recent constructions of ethnic identity? Today, in the United States, people identify themselves as African-American, Italian-American, Mexican-American, or Japanese- American while their immigrant ancestors to America often exhibited stronger local or regional identities. Many of the Armenian immigrants, for example, identified not as Armenians or Armenian-Americans when they first came to the United States, but as Kharpertzis, Vanetzis, Sepastatzis, and likewise, according to the village from which they had come. The Political-Economic View. The political-economic perspective on ethnicity emphasizes the emergent phenomenon of ethnic identity, ethnic conflict, and ethnic movements (Glazer and Moynihan 1970, 1975). Yancey, Ericksen, and Juliani (1976) suggest that certain structural conditions, such as common occupational positions, residential stability and concentration, and dependence on common institutions and services, crystallize ethnic identity and produce or heighten ethnic solidarity and mobilization accordingly. An assumption underlying the political- economic view is that “Ethnicity is a process of construction or invention which incorporates and adapts preexisting communal solidarities, cultural attributes, and historical memories” (Conzen, Gerber, Morawska, Pozzetta, and Vecolie 1992; Gans 1992:42-43). 80 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The Rational Choice View. Hechter, Friedman, and Applebaum (1982) apply a rational-choice theory to explain and predict ethnic identity, solidarity, and mobilization. From this view, the individual weighs the perceived costs and benefits of identifying with a particular ethnic group or participating in an ethnic organization or movement before acting. According to Waters (1990:151), ‘T he choice to have a symbolic ethnicity ... is an attractive and widespread one despite its lack of demonstrable content, because having a symbolic ethnicity combines individuality with feelings both of community and of conformity through an exercise of personal choice.” Having an ethnic identity provides a person with a feeling of “specialness” and a sense of belonging. General Paradigms o f Ethnicity The Assimilationist and Pluralist paradigms have been the dominant paradigms informing the literature on ethnicity. While the former emphasizes the trend over generations to become increasingly less similar to the immigrant generation, or “Americanized,” the latter contends that ethnic heritage is preserved across time, albeit in different ways for different groups. Assimilation. From the inception of the United States of America, assimilation models of American racial-ethnic relations have been central in 81 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. understanding the American experience. These models have been used in descriptive and normative ways, either describing the nature of racial-ethnic relations or indicating how racial-ethnic relations ideally should be. Two central ideologies or conceptual models have been employed to characterize the assimilation patterns or goals of this country—“Anglo-conformity” (Cole and Cole 1954:Ch. 6) and “Melting Pot.” Assimilation, as a topic of social science research, emerged in the early twentieth century through observations of the impact of the prior era of immigration. Anglo Conformity. The Anglo-conformity model assumed the desirability of maintaining the Anglo-Saxon cultural patterns as the dominant and standard form in American life (Gordon 1961). This model required the immigrant to completely accept and follow the behaviors and values of the Anglo-Saxon host group. Early presidents and congressmen were hesitant about immigration from the very beginning. Gordon (1961) references letters from George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and John Quincy Adams that reveal their doubts concerning the effects of mass immigration to America. On the one hand, immigrants were desired to add to the population and to participate in the labor force of an expanding country. On the other hand, the arrival of people very different from those already here was met with anxiety, suspicion, and discrimination. The early politicians believed that foreigners must “cast off the European skin” and become Americans. “If they cannot accommodate themselves to ... this country, ... the Atlantic is always open to them to return to the land of their nativity ... ,” wrote John Quincy Adams in 1818, then secretary of state (quoted in Gordon 1961:227). 82 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The first law restricting immigration, the Chinese Exclusion Act, was passed in 1882 and many other similar restrictions followed. An ideology that viewed the English, Germans, and others of the “old immigration” (i.e., from 1820 to 1880) as constituting a superior race and saw the peoples of eastern and southern Europe and others of the “new immigration” (i.e., from 1880 to 1930) as inferior breeds became prominent. These new immigrants could not all be excluded (although attempts were made to do so through subsequent legislation establishing immigration quotas), the Anglo-conformity attitude flourished: If you can't exclude them, you must shape them. Thus, a strong attempt at Americanization occurred around the time of World War I, involving hundreds of private associations, public leaders, and government agencies. Patriotic speeches and posters encouraged immigrants to learn English, adopt American customs, and become naturalized citizens. However, as some of the immigrant generation and many of the second generation soon learned, this invitation was only grudgingly extended, or, in the case of African-Americans, not extended at all, and certainly did not include the types of structural assimilation that would lead, according to Gordon (1964:81), to other forms of assimilation. After WWI, the Americanization movement subsided, and it was replaced by more immigration restrictions in the form of quotas, most notably through the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1924 (Gordon 1961). Melting P ot Although Anglo-conformity has been probably “the most prevalent ideology of assimilation in the American historical experience” (Gordon 1964:115), a contrasting viewpoint has competed with it since the eighteenth century. 8 3 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. J. Hector St. John Crevecoeur, a French-bom writer and agriculturalist who had settled in New York, responded to the question, “What is the American?” in a 1782 volume entitled Letters from an American Fanner. He is either an European, or the descendant of an European, hence that strange mixture of blood, which you will find in no other country. I could point out to you a family whose grandfather was an Englishman, whose wife was Dutch, whose son married a French woman, and whose present four sons have now four wives of different nations. He is an American .... Here individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men whose labours and posterity will one day cause great changes in the world, (quoted in Gordon 1964:116) The phrase, “the melting pot,” was pulled from chemistry and American literature to characterize what American society is or should be: a wholly new culture produced from the combination and mixing of a variety of cultures. The crucible, or melting pot, from chemistry has been used Figuratively by several writers to describe American society. Ralph Waldo Emerson, writing in 1845 of his dismay toward the nativist sentiment of the times, applies the melting pot metaphor when he refers to the burning of the ancient Greek temple at Corinth: ... by the melting and intermixture of silver and gold and other metals a new compound more precious than any, called Corinthian brass, was formed; so in this continent,—asylum of all nations,—the energy of Irish, Germans, Swedes, Poles, and Cossacks, and all the European tribes,—of the Africans, and of the Polynesians,—will construct a new race, a new religion, a new state, a new literature, which will be as vigorous as the new Europe which came out of the smelting-pot of the Dark Ages .... (quoted in Gordon 1964:117) Israel Zangwill (1909), an English-Jewish writer, reiterated this ideology a half century later in his popular Broadway play, The Melting Pot, attracting much public attention. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Here you stand ... at Ellis Island, here you stand in your fifty groups, with your fifty languages and histories, and your fifty blood hatreds and rivalries. But you won't be long like that, brothers, for these are the fires of God you’ve come to—these are the fires of God. A fig for your feuds and vendettas! Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians— into the Crucible with you all! God is making the American. ... Yes, East and West, and North and South, the palm and the pine, the pole and the equator, the crescent and the cross—how the great Alchemist melts and fuses them together with his purging flame! Here they all unite to build the Republic of Man and the Kingdom of God. ... what is the glory of Rome and Jerusalem where all nations and races come to worship and look back, compared with the glory of America, where all races and nations come to labour and look forward, (quoted in Gordon 1964:121). Through this play, which attracted public attention, and other rhetoric of the time, the melting pot idea become a widespread response to the influx of immigrants to America. The recurring emphasis that a new and improved "American” culture will emerge from the joining together of the Anglo-Saxon culture with that of other immigrant groups is clearly evident in each of the above three quotes. However, the “old immigration,” composed of peoples that were fairly similar in culture and physical appearance to those of Anglo-Saxon descent, was easily “melted,” while the “new immigration,” because of the heightened degree of cultural and physical differences, was not as easily “melted.” Ruby Jo Reeves Kennedy (1944) and August Hollingshead (1950) conducted the first empirical research to test the melting pot model. In examining mate selection in New Haven, Connecticut, Hollingshead noted “two pools of marriage mates”— white and black. This finding was not surprising, given that forty states had laws against interracial marriage at some time in their past. In fact, when the U.S. Supreme 8 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Court declared laws against interracial marriage unconstitutional on June 12, 1967, seventeen states still had such laws on the books (Jaret 1995; Lasswell and Lasswell 1991). Even in the 1990s, despite growing numbers of black-white intermarriages, only about three percent of all married African-Americans in the United States have a white spouse (Dalmage 2000; Tucker and Mitchell-Keman 1990). Hollingshead’s (1950) findings also supported those of Kennedy (1944) who examined New Haven marriage records for the period 1870-1950 and observed a trend toward a “triple melting pot” of Catholics, Protestants, and Jews. In later generations, she discovered a Protestant “pool,” from which English, Germans, and Scandinavians tended to marry; a Catholic “pool,” from which Irish, Italians, and Poles tended to marry; and a Jewish “pool,” from which German and Eastern European Jews would marry. Some studies of other groups have supported the idea of a multiple melting pot. For example, Zenner (1982:474), in his study of Arabic- speaking groups, found that Syrian Jews tend to marry American Jews, Syrian Christians tend to marry other Christians, and Syrian Muslims tend to marry other Muslims. Bakalian (1993) found that Protestant Armenians were most likely to marry someone from mainstream Protestant denominations, Armenian Catholics were most likely to find spouses who belonged to the Roman Catholic Church, and Armenian Orthodox tended to marry Presbyterians and Episcopalians. Just as ethnicity and religion are powerful forces shaping identity, cultural behavior, and social participation, social class has also been claimed to be an influential factor. Historically, most immigrants entered the United States as members 86 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of the lower social classes. Over time, with the attainment of education, ethnics became more geographically and socially mobile. As they moved out of the ethnic enclaves and entered more professional work environments, their ethnic “skin” is said to have been shed. Sandberg (1974) and others suggest that ethnic identity and the salience of ethnicity decline with higher social class status; thus, ethnic maintenance is thought to be more strongly associated with working class individuals. However, Gordon (1964) and Ransford (1977, 1994) argue that the intersection of social class and ethnicity (a concept referred to as “ethclass”) may produce unique social spaces. For example, a person with an “ethclass” of middle class Armenian-American may exhibit a unique blend of class styles, values, and tastes and ethnic identification and be different from both a middle-class Mexican-American and a lower-class Armenian-American. Gordon (1964:52-53) suggests that identity is most often a reflection of ethnicity, while social class best predicts cultural behavior. Social participation in primary groups is hypothesized to be largely influenced by ethclass, the “social space created by the intersection of the ethnic group with the social class” (Gordon 1964:51). Ransford (1977, 1994) notes the lack of attention that ethclass has garnered in race or stratification literature. While the national rate of Catholic-Protestant intermarriage has been shown to be significantly higher than that of New Haven (Thomas 1951) and Kennedy’s data have been challenged (Peach 1981), the idea of “multiple” melting pots generated much debate and investigation which questioned the assimilation of racial-ethnic groups into an American “mass society.” Indeed, recent scholars have wondered 87 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. whether “new pots” are now forming. The single melting pot model is now considered an inadequate description of racial-ethnic relations in the United States (Jaret 1995). Assimilation Theory in Social Science. The social science concept of “assimilation” is borrowed from biology. Early sociologists often employed biological terms to describe human social life. For example, Herbert Spencer (1897), among others, thought of human groups and societies as large, complex living organisms, consisting of numerous interdependent parts, each with its own function to perform. Assimilation theory traces its roots to the early twentieth century. Although historian Frederick Jackson Turner’s (1920) “frontier thesis” was one of the first social science theories employing the melting pot metaphor, the scientific understanding of ethnicity, immigration, and assimilation advanced through the works of Robert E. Park, W.I. Thomas, and their collaborators and students at the Chicago School. Park outlined a four-stage “race-relations cycle” of “contact, competition, accommodation, and eventual assimilation” (Park 1950). He and E.W. Burgess ([1921] 1969:735) defined assimilation as “a process of interpenetration and fusion in which persons and groups acquire the memories, sentiments, and attitudes of other persons or groups, and, by sharing their experience and history, are incorporated with them in a common cultural life.” This definition implies changes in culture, on the part of one or all groups, and in social structural relationships. A later definition clarifies the limited extent of assimilation that Park envisioned, where “social” 88 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. assimilation was “the name given to the process or processes by which peoples of diverse racial origins and different cultural heritages, occupying a common territory, achieve a cultural solidarity sufficient at least to sustain national existence’' (Park 1930:281). These definitions do not equate assimilation with a disappearance of ethnicity or ethnic identity. Cultural Pluralism. Writing in 1835, de Tocqueville observed the separateness of “ The Three Races [i.e., European, Indian, and African] that Inhabit the Territory of the United States,” the partial title of a chapter in Democracy in America ([1835] 2000). Gordon (1961), too, understands that cultural pluralism was reality in American society long before it became a theory. He cites the fact that many, if not most, of the early immigrants created and settled in ethnic enclaves. This physical separation from other groups allowed them to preserve more of their native cultural patterns (i.e., language, religion, institutions, etc.). In the early part of the 20th century, Randolph Bourne, Horace Kallen, and others advocated cultural pluralism as a democratic principle allowing immigrants to preserve their heritage (Bourne 1916; Kallen 1924, 1956). “For the first time it was seen that the specific ethnic components did not necessarily have to disappear and assimilate” (Abramson 1980:153). Kallen used the metaphor of a “symphony orchestra” to describe patterns of ethnic relations, while others have suggested the image of the United States as a “ “ mosaic.” The idea is that diversity could persist and that variety of different cultures can co-exist in a “trans-national America” (Bourne 89 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1916; Handlin 1959; Sowell 1981). This ideology of pluralism, formed largely by idealistic members of the middle class, postulated the preservation of the communal life and significant portions of the culture of the later immigrant groups within the context of American society (Gordon 1964). The cultural capital of the country is considered to be enhanced as the ethnic groups contribute elements from their cultural traditions. The underlying notion is that out of diversity comes strength. The pluralist paradigm does not adequately address or account for the problems of conflict and unity. The metaphors used above suggest a coming together of the different “instruments” or “pieces” to make a beautiful whole, but the problem is that ethnic relations are not equitable. It is also unclear what holds those components together. Since World War II, this theory has gained more support, and new pluralist writers refer to the “integration” of immigrants rather than their assimilation. Glazer and Moynihan (1970) acknowledge that even though acculturation among white ethnic groups occurs, the perpetuation of residential, behavioral, and organizational patterns contributes to their distinctive ethnic identity. Andrew Greeley (1971, 1974) employs the term “ethnogenesis” to describe the process of how various aspects of the ethnic culture and identity are retained or replaced. In some cases, the ethnic group members construct new elements and patterns of ethnicity even while some degree of assimilation is occurring. Many pluralist social theorists continue to use the analogy of a “mosaic” or a “salad bowl” to depict American society, proclaiming a resilience of ethnicity. 90 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Symbolic Ethnicity. Many, if not most, sociologists suggest that cultural pluralism overstates the strength of ethnic identification and amount of culture retained by ethnic group members in succeeding generations, especially members of white ethnic groups. They argue that identification with (i.e., feeling) and participation in (i.e., being) ethnic culture, networks, and organizations are substantively different and that the ethnic culture in most cases is not lived except through symbols. “Mere identification with a group does not imply that the ethnic identity is strong, as Herbert Gans’ (1979) thesis of symbolic ethnicity suggests” (Alba and Chamlin 1983:247). Gans (1979) originally described symbolic ethnicity as the near-end stage of the “straight-line” theory of assimilation. Alba (1985a, 1985b) has described later-generation white ethnics as entering the “twilight of ethnicity” in which they do not rely upon the ethnic culture and institutions in their daily lives. Rather, they come to merely use the visible symbols of ethnicity at their convenience to satisfy their needs for belonging. Ethnic identity is different from before in that one is no longer stigmatized by ethnic origin and that the “ethnic” (i.e., person) can lose the “identity” at any time. Ethnic identity is now, largely, just one component of one's self concept which, in an appropriate time and place, can be brought to the fore, expressed, and be a source of pride. “Rites of passage (such as births, deaths, and marriages), religious or civic holidays (such as Christmas, saint’s days, Independence Day) are occasions for enacting ethnicity with one’s family and kin, often in the privacy of one’s own home” (Bakalian 1993:45). 91 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Gans (1979) describes this as more of a “nostalgic” symbolic ethnicity in which cultural patterns are transformed into and expressed through symbols such as celebrating ethnic holidays, eating ethnic foods, and identifying with ethnic issues. Yinger (1994) warns that even this description and terminology may exaggerate the salience of ethnic identity. However, it seems to me that the importance and meaning of these described forms of ethnic identity among later-generation white ethnics are minimized. While Keefe (1992:37) and Alba (1990:76) employ similar definitions of ethnic culture—as the pattern of behaviors and beliefs that distinguish one group from another, including food, language, and holiday ceremonies—they have divergent views of what “symbolic ethnicity” represents. Alba, following Gans’ argument, views symbolic ethnicity in terms of an absence of certain ethnic characteristics, while the latter “perceives symbolic processes in a far more positive light” (Sprott 1994:316). For example, Alba (1990:77) reminds us that symbolic ethnicity refers to “shallow” ethnic cultural commitments, “confined to a few ethnic symbols that do not intrude on a life that is otherwise nonethnic.” Keefe reframes what Gans and Alba regard as a shell or facade of culture into a basic survival element of minority cultures existing within a larger multicultural nation. For the descendants of the immigration of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, “ethnic group membership and identity (and thus ’symbolic’) processes compensate for the loss of cultural content in maintaining social group boundaries” (Sprott 1994:319). Keefe’s view of the role of cultural content for ethnic groups presents an intriguing counter to the usual negative framing of cultural loss one often 92 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. finds in the literature and her findings resonate with that of Blu (1980) for the Lumbee Indians of North Carolina in which a viable group identity was preserved despite little differentiation of cultural content or phenotype between them and their white neighbors (Sprott 1994:319). In contradiction to what the straight-line theory would predict, Alba (1990:204) and Sprott (1994) both found that intermarriage “has little or no relationship to whether individuals identify in ethnic terms.” Furthermore, salience of ethnic identity was not diminished by intermarriage, although Gans (1979:18) believes it is only a matter of time. Since his original writing, Gans (1992:45) has clarified his view of symbolic ethnicity by acknowledging that this form of ethnic identity could become a permanent source of extra identity. He also suggests replacing the straight-line theory of Warner and Srole (1945) with “bumpy line theory, the bumps representing various kinds of adaptations to changing circumstances—and with the line having no predictable end.” This revision is made, in part, because the acculturating generations are once more being partly replaced by new immigrants from the same countries and because of the evidence of lingering ethnic identity for third and later generations (Alba 1990; Waters 1990). He explains that this view was not likely to have been foreseen by Warner and Srole in the 1930s and 1940s, a time in which immigration was severely restricted and assimilation was seen as a goal for many groups. Most recently, Gans (1997) attempts to reconcile the assimilationist and pluralist positions. Prior to presenting his two basic arguments, he renames these paradigms as acculturationist (“for the so-called assimilationists have actually been 93 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. emphasizing acculturation, [i.e.] becoming American culturally but not necessarily socially”) and retentionist (as pluralism has come to have a multiplicity of meanings rendering it useless as an empirical concept). Then, he argues that since ethnic retentionists acknowledge that acculturation is occurring at the same time ethnic social ties are being retained, the two perspectives are not contradictory. Secondly, Gans submits that any empirical differences that do remain may be a result of differences in both the research and in the researchers. While the data in early research on European immigrant groups was collected from mostly second generation adults and analyzed by “outsiders who were neither members of, nor had any great personal interest in, the groups they studied” (Merton 1973), the data on recent (post- 1965) immigration is collected by insiders who come from the groups they are studying through surveys and interviews with the immigrants themselves (“and sometimes the 1.5 and second generation school children and teenagers who still live with and are under more retentionist pressures from their parents than they will be later”) (Gans 1997:876). Gans (1994:578) argues, as in 1979, “that symbolic ethnicity—and the consumption and other use of ethnic symbols— is intended mainly for the purpose of feeling or being identified with a particular ethnicity, but without either participating in an existing ethnic organization (formal or informal) or practicing an ongoing ethnic culture.” Some of his critics, pointing to his terminology that symbolic ethnicity was “an ethnicity of last resort,” thought it referred to a last stage of ethnicity before complete acculturation. Gans, however, claims that the phrase, “which could, 94 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. nevertheless, persist for generations,” that immediately followed the quote above seems to have been overlooked. However, in my view, he clearly predicted an end to ethnicity when he wrote: Finally, even if I am right to predict that symbolic ethnicity can persist into the fifth and sixth generations, I would be foolish to suggest that it is a permanent phenomenon. Although all Americans, save the Indians, came here as immigrants and are thus in one sense ethnics, people who arrived in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, and before the mid-nineteenth century “old” immigration are, except in some rural enclaves, no longer ethnics even if they know where their emigrant ancestors came from. (Gans 1979:19) Recently, he has clarified his position that “symbolic ethnicity would persist at least [emphasis added] through the fifth or sixth generation” (Gans 1994:578), or that this form of ethnic identity could “become a permanent source of extra identity, an occasion for nostalgia, a pleasant leisure time activity ...” (Gans 1992:45). Recent studies of later generation white ethnics have indicated support for the perpetuation of symbolic ethnicity (Alba 1990; Waters 1990). Although, Gans (1994:579-580) does acknowledge, and I agree, that “over time people have less and less of an ethnic repertoire on which to draw for that behavior, and ... are ... unlikely either to invent deliberately whole new ethnic patterns or carefully reconstruct old ones which they have never experienced personally.” This does not mean, to me, that ethnicity will disappear altogether. And, despite admitting that “the constructionist approach has put an end to conceptualizing straight-line theory literally, that is, as an inevitable downward and linear secular trend,” Gans (1992:44, 1994:580) continues to employ the terminology “line” in his updated “bumpy line” theory, “with the bumps 95 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. representing various kinds of adaptations to changing circumstances—and with the line having no predictable end." Filling the Gap between Paradigms Warner and Srole (1945) were incorrect about the then prevalent belief that acculturation and assimilation followed a straight-line trend toward the eventual and inevitable disappearance of all traces of ethnicity. This is likely due to having only two generations available for study and their reasonable extrapolation of the dramatic changes they witnessed between the immigrant and second generation. Assimilation is clearly not linear; although acculturation occurs, there continues to be identification with some ideology or entity (Sandberg 1974). Pettigrew (1976:12,15) argues, "Assimilation and pluralism should not be viewed as mutually exclusive alternatives”; “Assimilation is not the opposite of but part of the same process as pluralism.” The phrase assimilation and ethnicity suggests an additive, not substitutive (i.e., zero-sum) process—what Hurh and Kim (1983) call “adhesive adaptation.” Similarly, Yinger (1994:39,41) defines the processes of assimilation and dissimilation: “Assimilation is a process of boundary reduction that can occur when members of two or more societies, ethnic groups, or smaller social groups meet”; “Dissimilation [is] the process whereby intrasocietal differences are maintained and 96 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. created around subcultural groups.” Each process is considered to be reversible (i.e., multi-directional) and multi-dimensional. In developing an eight-fold typology of ethnic identity, Yinger (1994:4-5) denotes three criteria of ethnic identity, each conceived as a discrete ordinal variable and operationalized in the form of a yes/no question: 1) “Are they perceived by others as ethnically distinct?” 2) “Do individuals perceive themselves as ethnically distinct?” 3) “Do they participate in shared activities built around their (real or mythical) common origins and culture?” Measured by these three criteria, Yinger creates eight varieties of ethnic identity ranging from “fully ethnic” to “nonethnic” with “symbolic ethnic identity” in the middle (see Table 4.0). TABLE 4.0 Varieties of Ethnic Identity I. Are they perceived by others as ethnically distinct? YES NO II. Do individuals perceive II. Do individuals perceive themselves as ethnically distinct? themselves as ethnically distinct? YES | NO YES 1 NO HI. Do they participate in shared activities? YES 1. Full 2. Unrecognized 3. Private 4. Hidden NO 5. Symbolic 6. Stereotyped 7. Imagined 8. Nonethnic Source: Yinger (1994:4). 97 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Yinger further suggests that subtle distinctions among types and forms of ethnicity could be delineated if these three criteria were measured as continuous variables. He clarifies the term “assimilation” along three principles in order to develop it as a more useful analytic tool: 1. “[Assimilation] is a descriptive, not an evaluative concept. Another way to say this is that the study of assimilation is simultaneously the study of dissimilation. To study the conditions under which cultural lines of division within a society are weakened is at the same time to study the conditions under which they are reinforced” (Yinger 1994:40). 2. “Assimilation refers to a variable, not an attribute” (Yinger 1994:40). Assimilation is rarely complete or absent and the conception of assimilation as a variable allows us to recognize, measure, and describe the range of interaction, cultural exchange, and fusion between groups. 3. “Assimilation is a multi-dimensional process. The various aspects of that process ... are highly interactive, but they vary separately (although not entirely independently) propelled by somewhat Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. different sets of causes; they change at different rates and in different sequences” (Yinger 1994:40-41). Drawing from Gordon’s (1964) typology, Yinger (1994:69) recognizes four separate, yet interdependent subprocesses of assimilation: integration, acculturation, identification, and amalgamation—the social structural, cultural, psychological, and biological aspects of assimilation. As variables, each can change in direction, strengthening or weakening the assimilation process. Regarding the psychological process of identification, Yinger (1994) acknowledges the influence of other assimilative processes and notes that self- identification and identification are not always correlated. He emphasizes that ethnic identities are not fixed and unambiguous and suggests that “we do not know very much about an individual’s ethnic identity ... if we know only labels and classifications” (Yinger 1994:141). Likewise, Gans (1992:50) warns researchers that simply because individuals can supply an ethnic identity when asked: “We do not know how many would do so if asked a general and open-ended question about the sources of their personal identity.” We must include such questions about general identity, measure the degree of importance of ethnic identity in the life of the individual, and obtain information about the consistency of identification across time and space. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ethnic Identity Retention. Isajiw (1996), a Canadian sociologist, acknowledges that Yinger goes beyond the work of Louis Wirth and Milton Gordon in his theory of assimilation and dissimilation, but he also believes he has not gone far enough: [Yinger] still reflects what, for long, American sociology of ethnicity has taken for granted, namely, the assumption that the two processes, assimilation and ethnic identity retention, are inconsistent with one another, if not contradictory. Assimilation has been seen as largely a zero-sum phenomenon, i.e., to the extent persons assimilate into dominant society, to that extent they lose their ethnic identity and vice versa, to the extent they retain ethnic identity, to that extent they fail to assimilate. It is precisely because of this assumption, Isajiw explains, that many sociologists are perplexed about the persistence of ethnic identity retention in later generations of otherwise assimilated individuals. The investigation of assimilation and the corresponding change in ethnicity over generations has largely been related to Hansen’s (1952) hypothesis that although ethnicity declines in the second generation, there is resurgence in the third generation. The research has produced conflicting and, sometimes, confusing results. ‘The facts have shown both loss and retention of ethnic identity” (Isajiw 1990:38). “By the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s, researchers of ethnicity had concluded that in spite of assimilation some percentage and some form of ethnic identity often remains in the second, third, and even later generations” (Isajiw 1990:45). Studies now tried to understand this form of ethnic identity, and it came to be described as “dime store ethnicity” (Stein and Hill 1977), “symbolic ethnicity” (Gans 1979), and “emergent and situational” (Yancey, Eriksen, and Juliani 1976). 100 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Isajiw (1990:34) defines ethnic identity retention as “the extent to which attributes that can be identified as characteristic of the specific ethnic group are present among second or subsequent generations.” He clarifies that “these attributes may or may not be the same among those found among the first generation.” Initially, although this sounds contradictory— how can something be said to be retained if it is no longer the same?—I surmise that the author is referring to the new form(s) of ethnicity. This is in line with Gans’ (1956) observation that any “return to ethnicity” among later generations was unlikely to resemble the traditional ethnic culture practiced by the immigrant generation. Isajiw (1990) distinguishes between external and internal aspects of ethnic identity in which external aspects refer to observable behavior and internal aspects refer to images, ideas, attitudes and feelings about one’s ethnic group. While emphasizing that the two are interconnected, he also warns that the two types should not be assumed to be always dependent on each other. Isajiw (1990:36-37) further delineates three types of internal aspects of identity: cognitive (awareness and knowledge of one’s group); moral (feelings of group obligations; hypothesized to be the central dimension of subjective identity); and affective (feelings of attachment to the group). He contends that some forms of ethnic identity can and do persist for generations in spite of extensive social mobility and assimilation. Although Alba and Chamlin (1983:246) conclude from their analysis of General Social Survey data on intermarriage that “ethnic identification may remain an issue, even for the socially assimilated,” Alba (1990:300,318) explains that the 101 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. continuation of ethnic identity may be because it “fit[s] well with the individualism of American life.” As such, ethnic identities “become increasingly personal in nature, largely creatures of individual inclinations and tastes rather than social attachments.” This “privatization of ethnic identity” is related to what Gans (1988) called “middle American individualism” which proclaims one’s individual uniqueness. Identifying with a particular ethnic group allows one to simultaneously fulfil the need to be distinct and the desire to belong (Waters 1990). For Erikson (1968:208), identity involves “a conscious sense of individual uniqueness, an unconscious striving for continuity ... [and] a solidarity with a group’s ideals.” Still, Isajiw’s (1990) examination of first, second, and third generation German, Italian, Jewish, and Ukrainian populations in Toronto revealed at least five specific forms of ethnic identity retention into the third generation, one of them involving social attachments to members of the same ethnic group. The others include identity revolving around: (1) concrete objects, as symbols, such as food and household decor, (2) the practice of ethnic customs and community participation, (3) language, and (4) giving support to the group’s causes or needs or helping group members. Each group also exhibited different degrees and forms of ethnic identity across generations. Because there are many different components of ethnicity, Isajiw (1990:49) suggests “a methodology that would compare ethnic-identity retention of the different generations [for a variety of ethnic groups] using as many components as possible.” This way one could determine what forms of ethnic identity are retained longest, whether there is overlap between the different types of ethnic identity in 102 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. individual persons, and patterns through which different groups incorporate their identity into the larger society. Framing the Current Research Sociologist Milton Gordon (1954) distinguished between “behavioral/cultural assimilation” (i.e., acculturation; involving a change of cultural patterns to those of the host society) and “structural assimilation” (i.e., involving the large-scale entrance into cliques, clubs, and institutions of the host society on a primary group level). Further, Gordon (1964) delineated five additional “assimilation subprocesses,” including marital assimilation, identificational assimilation, attitude receptional assimilation, behavior receptional assimilation, and civic assimilation. Yinger (1994) considers cultural, structural, marital, and identificational assimilation to be the four primary, separate, yet interdependent subprocesses constituting assimilation. Each of these aspects of assimilation is its own variable that can change in either direction. For Yinger (1994), attitude/behavior receptional assimilation and civic assimilation are more appropriately seen as causes and, later, consequences of the extent of assimilation. Gordon (1964) hypothesized that acculturation is likely to be, although not necessarily, the first type of assimilation when a new ethnic group enters a society. Although, in Gordon’s account, acculturation could occur without accompanying forms of assimilation, he did suggest that once a group achieves structural 103 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. assimilation—that is, enters into the social cliques, clubs, and institutions of the core society at the primary group level—other forms of assimilation, such as marital assimilation, are not far away. For Gordon, structural assimilation is the “keystone of the arch of assimilation” (1964:81). With a large degree of marital assimilation, Gordon believed identificational assimilation would be an inevitable by-product. Likewise, prejudice and discrimination would fade, since the descendants would have become indistinguishable and primary relations more developed. Finally, if assimilation is complete, encompassing intrinsic as well as extrinsic cultural traits, then value conflicts on civic issues are unlikely to arise. Gordon's theoretical framework has been suggested by many to imply a “straight-line” model of assimilation in the United States: the later the generation, the greater the degree of assimilation. However, while Gordon does suggest that acculturation is unavoidable, he does not say that assimilation is an inevitable outcome for immigrant groups (Alba and Nee 1997). Thus, a more accurate representation of his ideas would be: the greater the degree of structural assimilation, the greater the likelihood of complete assimilation. As previously mentioned, Gans, even in his first writing (1979:19), acknowledges that “the straight-line has never been quite straight” and that “it ignores the ethnic groups who still continue to make tiny small bumps and waves in the line.” However, he also argues that to suggest that ethnic identity, including “symbolic ethnicity,” could persist past the sixth generation or be a permanent phenomenon would be “foolish.” Even his concession in his more recent writings (1992 and 1994) 104 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. regarding the persistence of symbolic ethnicity through the sixth generation and perhaps indefinitely, Gans minimizes the potential significance or impact such identity could have. What he may be underestimating is the degree of cultural, religious, or physical dissimilarity to the larger American “norm” that some of the groups of the “new” immigration exhibited compared to that of the “old” immigrant groups. The current study attempts to test this model of assimilation among Armenian-Americans in Central California, particularly those of later (third and fourth) generations and mixed parentage. Much of the early sociological attention has been focused on ethnicity as a group phenomenon (Abramson 1980). In studying later-generation white ethnics, who no longer reside in ethnic enclaves nor work in ethnic jobs, the attention has shifted from the study of “ethnic groups” as a collectivity to the “ethnic identity” of the individual (Waters 1990). Sprott (1994:315) identifies three theoretical models that have dominated research on ethnic identity: (1) Erikson’s (1950) individual psychological model, based on his eight-stage theory of development, focusing on the effects of childhood socialization on the acquiring of a sense of group belonging; (2) the social psychological model (Vaughan 1987:82), emphasizing the role of interactions and social networks in shaping ethnic identity; and (3) the social ecological model (Miller 1992; Root 1992:182), describing a developmental process as it occurs within particular settings in the larger social structure. Like the single continuum model discussed in Chapter One, Eriksonian-based models and social psychological theories of ethnic identity development describe the 105 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. process in linear, universal terms. Conversely, ecological models consider economics, population ratios, societal images, in-group socialization, historical legacies, and rules governing intergroup relations as mitigating factors of ethnic identity development (Miller 1992). For example, the boundaries between groups of relatively equal social status are typically less stringent than the boundaries between groups of unequal status (Blau, Blum, and Schwartz 1982; Van den Berghe 1967). Group size and concentration can also influence the probability and extent of intergroup contact and conflict, affecting marital assimilation and attitudinal/behavioral receptional assimilation (Monahan 1976). Historical legacies of a particular group also shape intergroup relations and give meaning to ethnic identity. The Armenians, existing as an oppressed minority in the Ottoman Turkish Empire for several hundred years, had a strong sense of * ‘we” and “they” and were prepared for the prejudice and discrimination they encountered in the United States. In examining ethnic identity among Armenian-Americans in the San Joaquin Valley of Central California, I acknowledge the multi-dimensional nature of assimilation and the particular historical, cultural, demographic, and economic contexts within which ethnic identity is shaped. I contend that the “straight-line” theories are deficient in their account of the ethnic experience in America. The view of assimilation versus ethnicity creates somewhat of a false dichotomy, an either-or fallacy. Drawing from Yinger’s (1981, 1994) outline of a theory of assimilation and dissimilation and Isajiw’s work (1990, 1996), I argue that, while assimilation characteristics may be taking hold of many later generation ethnics, ethnic identity 106 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. still persists and, for some, is an important part of their lives. In my analysis of the data from the current study, it is possible to extract those later-generation Armenian- Americans who assert a strong ethnic identity and claim its importance amidst a host of assimilational characteristics and those who exemplify enduring subjective and objective ethnic characteristics. The aim here, then, is to identify those cases and decipher various factors that may account for such divergence in the “straight-line” theory of assimilation. To address this, much attention will be given to Gordon’s concept of identificational assimilation. The idea that ethnic identification changes, is flexible, or involves a degree of choice for some stands in stark contrast to the common sense notion of ethnic identity as a fixed characteristic, derived from one’s biological roots and assigned at birth. And, it has been concluded by social scientists who study ethnicity that, “while ethnicity is based in a belief in a common ancestry, ethnicity is primarily a social phenomenon, not a biological one” (Alba 1985a, 1990; Barth 1969; Waters 1996:444; Weber [1921] 1968:389). Thus, ethnic identity is constantly in flux and is altered from generation to generation, through intermarriage, changing allegiances, and changing social categories. White Americans have been described as having “ethnic options” (Waters 1990) concerning their ethnic identity. The two primary options that can be exercised are (1) the option whether to claim any specific ancestry or to just be “White” or American [Lieberson (1985) termed these people “unhyphenated Whites”] and (2) the choice of which of their ancestries to include in their description of their identities. 107 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. This option is said to exist for whites because of social changes and societal conditions that have created a great deal of intergenerational mobility, immigrant assimilation, and political and economic power for whites in the United States (Waters 1996). The extent of discrimination and social distance attached to particular backgrounds has diminished over time. Finally, this study will attempt to address the question of what ethnic identity means to people and why some ascribe to it rather than just becoming “American.” The phenomenon, known as “symbolic ethnicity,” coined by Gans (1979), refers to ethnicity that is “individualistic in nature and without real social cost for the individual” (Waters 1996:446) and occurs among many later-generation white ethnics. The ethnic identification tends to involve leisure time activities, be rooted in nuclear family traditions, and be reinforced by the voluntary enjoyable aspects of being ethnic (Waters 1990). Along with this identification often comes a feeling of “specialness” (Alba 1990). An example of symbolic ethnicity is an individual who identifies as Armenian, for example, on occasions such as Armenian Martyrs’ Day (April 24), Armenian Christmas (January 6), on family holidays, or for vacations. He or she usually does not speak Armenian, belong to Armenian-American organizations, attend an Armenian church, live in an Armenian neighborhood, or marry a person of Armenian descent. In this case, ethnic identity is reduced to a single component of one’s self concept which, in an appropriate time and place, can be brought to the fore, expressed, and experienced as a source of pride. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Hypotheses and Explorations The four subprocesses of assimilation—cultural, structural, marital, and identificational assimilation—are the primary dependent variables in this study. They also become independent variables to the extent that they interact with each other. From this, two major questions are pursued. First, I will describe the extent of the various types of assimilation of Armenian-Americans in Central California in response to the question: What is the process of assimilation among Armenian- Americans and how does this fit or not fit with the straight-line theories of assimilation? Second, I intend to address the question of “What constitutes the current Armenian-American identity?” as defined by my respondents. I expect there to be some degree of straight line assimilation operating in this sample and, accordingly, hypothesize that generation will be inversely related to ethnic identification, retention of ethnic culture, participation in ethnic community (structural), and marital endogamy. In addition to respondent’s generation, three independent variables— respondent’s religious affiliation, percent Armenian ancestry, years of education completed—will be tested to note their single and combined effects on the various measures of assimilation. Each of these three variables, along with generation, is viewed as an important factor that would affect the degree of assimilation. Accordingly, from a straight-line perspective, I hypothesize that ethnic religious affiliation, level of education, and percent Armenian ancestry will each be inversely related to the four measures of assimilation. 109 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. However, as argued throughout this dissertation, I am also expecting a great deal of evidence for the co-existence of ethnicity and assimilation, especially so given the Armenian historical legacy, sense of peoplehood, and unique history that Armenians have experienced in Central California. The straight-line format is only one face of reality for the Armenian ethnic group. Expecting both assimilation and persistence of ethnicity is a difficult equation empirically, and I am on somewhat exploratory ground here. What is needed is a probable or reasonable set of benchmarks for “empirical signs” of ethnicity and assimilation. I propose the following: a) Any instance in which one form of assimilation is significantly correlated with generation but another form of assimilation is not will be considered evidence of ethnicity and assimilation. For example, if generation were correlated with cultural assimilation but not identificational assimilation, such that many persons lose language and cultural practices with each passing generation but not their identification with the Armenian ethnic group, this would be an example of ethnicity and assimilation. b) If, using multiple regression, the R-square or explained variance for the joint effect of all the independent variables on one of the four measures of assimilation is less than 50%, it is a definite indication that many other explanatory factors are operating, of which the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. retention of ethnicity is likely to be one. Such instances of less than 50% variance explained will signal the need for further inquiry with crosstabulation analysis to note more precisely how much overlap in assimilation and ethnic retention exists. To contrast with straight-line predictions, I expect to find “mixed” profiles (i.e., those individuals who exhibit combinations of assimilation and ethnicity) and “deviant” cases (third and fourth generation respondents with a high degree of subjective ethnic identification and objective ethnicity). It is an examination of these profiles that can illuminate the processes of assimilation and ethnicity. I will explore the factors that account for their variation, and I will investigate the forms ethnic identity takes among later-generation (third and fourth generation) Armenian- Americans who are likely to have mixed profiles on the four assimilational processes. This is precisely what Alba and Chamlin (1983:241), Bakalian (1993:332), Isajiw (1990), and Yinger (1994:44,347) identify as a desperate need in ethnicity research. The key independent variables I hypothesize to be associated with divergence from straight-line predictions are those associated with exposure to Armenian influences (e.g., family, friends, institutions, etc.) during childhood and current interaction with other Armenians, either socially or professionally. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER FIVE DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS: PATTERNS OF CHANGE AND PERSISTENCE Having reviewed the theoretical and substantive literature regarding assimilation and ethnicity, an introduction to the findings of this study is presented in this chapter as an overview of the patterns of change (i.e., assimilation) and the patterns of persistence (i.e., ethnicity) for cultural and structural assimilation. (Marital and identificational assimilation do not have multiple measures and thus will be examined using crosstab analysis in Chapter Six.) The percentages for different indicators of each type of assimilation are presented for the first generation (foreign bom), the second generation (bom in the United States or immigrated prior to six years of age), and the fourth generation (those respondents with one or more grandparents bom in the United States). Cultural Change and Persistence Four components of culture are examined for patterns of change and persistence: language, literature/popular media, food, and religion (the latter was not used as part of the cultural assimilation scale used as a dependent variable in Chapter 112 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Six). Ethnic culture is closely associated with the ethnic language. However, persistence of ethnic language across generations is notably difficult for almost all ethnic groups. The “mother-tongue” shift has been noted in the existing literature (Alba 1985a; Bakalian 1993; Jendian 1992; Stevens 1985) and is expected to occur for this sample. Literature is another important component of culture. Through the written word, in books and newspapers, information and knowledge about the group’s history, activities, and stories are also shared. The popular media not only inform but also shape public opinion by providing an ethnic perspective on current events. Food seems to be another significant component of culture. Groups are noted for their particular cuisine. Knowledge of the preparation of ethnic foods, as well as having a taste for the ethnic dishes, is a measure of cultural persistence. To have learned the recipes shows a retention of ethnic culture, and some dishes might be said to require an acquired taste (e.g., kheymah, seasoned raw ground beef, or yalanchee, rolled grape leaves stuffed with rice and seasonings). Finally, as mentioned in Chapter Two, religion (specifically Christianity) is closely linked with Armenian culture. The holidays and community festivals are tied to the “feast days” of the church, and the names of saints and biblical figures (and events) are commonly given at birth in Armenian and non-Armenian forms (e.g., Matthew or Mateos, Harry or Haroutiun, literally “Resurrection,” and Avedis, literally “Good News”). Table 5.0 lists, in order of greatest percent change, the variables associated with cultural assimilation. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TA BLE 5.0 Percentages for Indicators of Cultural Assimilation for First, Second, and Fourth Generation Respondents Measure of Cultural Assimilation Percent in Each Generation (in order of greatest percent change)____________ First Second Fourth Chance (1 s t-4ttl'> Speak Armenian 91.2 84.9 16.0 -75.2 (adequately to very well) Read and Write Armenian 79.4 18.3 8.0 -71.4 (adequately to very well) Speak Armenian at home 78.8 44.4 16.7 -62.1 (sometimes to all of the time) Eat Armenian food at home 79.4 71.4 48.0 -31.4 (fairly often to very often) Must speak Armenian to stay Armenian 44.1 22.8 18.4 -25.7 (mildly agree or strongly agree) Receive Armenian papers/magazines at home 52.9 30.4 28.0 -24.9 (fairly often to very often) Read Armenian Literature (Arm. or Eng.) 55.9 40.9 32.0 -23.9 (sometimes to very often) Member of an Armenian church 88.2 85.9 67.3 -20.9 (Orthodox or Protestant) Go to Armenian restaurants 48.5 69.3 68.0 +19.5 (sometimes to very often) Attend an Armenian church 55.2 38.5 45.5 -9.7 (2-3 times a month or more) Language ability exhibits the most change from the first to the fourth generation. For example, 91.2% of the first generation speak Armenian adequately to very well, while only 16.0% of the fourth generation do so (a decrease of 75.2%). Whether the ability to speak Armenian is a defining characteristic of one’s “Armenianness” has been a point of contention within the Armenian ethnic group. 114 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As within other cultures, an oft-heard remark is: “What kind of an Armenian are you if you don’t speak Armenian?” The later generations are much less likely to agree that one must speak Armenian in order to remain Armenian. Although, it should be noted that a majority (55.9%) of the first generation respondents mildly or strongly disagree that one must speak Armenian to stay Armenian. Perhaps the older members of this generation are becoming aware of the likelihood that their grandchildren will not be able to speak Armenian and, out of their desire for biological continuity (cf. Bengtson and Kuypers 1971; Giarrusso, Stallings, and Bengtson 1995), do not see them as being less Armenian. A moderate amount of change (31.4%) is revealed for the percentage of the first and fourth generations reporting to eat Armenian food at home fairly often or very often. More than 70% of both the first and second generations eat Armenian food at home this often. However, respondents were also asked how often they went to restaurants that specialize in Armenian dishes. It appears that the later generations may still have the taste for Armenian food, even though their culinary skills may have dissipated (see Table 5.1). Sixty-eight percent of the fourth generation report going to restaurants specializing in Armenian dishes sometimes to very often compared to only 48.5 of the first generation. This finding supports Isajiw’s (1990) hypothesis that ethnic food is retained for later generations not as a skill but as a symbol. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TA BLE 5.1 Frequenting Armenian Restaurants by Generation Generation Armenian Total 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 How often do you Never or Rarely go to restaurants 17 51.5% 28 30.8% 35 30.7% 16 32.0% 96 33.3% ll ial n i Sometimes Armenian dishes? 6 18.2% 44 48.4% 61 53.5% 24 48.0% 135 46.9% Fairly or Very Ofter 10 30.3% 19 20.9% 18 15.8% 10 20.0% 57 19.8% Total 33 100.0% 91 100.0% 114 100.0% 50 100.0% 288 100.0% Receiving Armenian newspapers or magazines at home and reading Armenian literature (either in the original or in translation) also exhibits a moderate amount of change (24%) from the first to the fourth generation. Religion proves to be the most persistent of the cultural characteristics. The percent of those listing “none” for religious affiliation increases only slightly from 5.9% of the first generation to 10.2% of the fourth generation, and the percent affiliated with an Armenian church (Protestant or Orthodox) decreases from 88.2% to 67.3%, respectively. Of those respondents affiliated with an Armenian church, the percentage attending 2-3 times or more per month is not significantly diminished across generations, decreasing only slightly from 55.2% to 45.5%, respectively (and, in fact, this percentage of fourth generation respondents is greater than that of the second generation). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Structural Change and Persistence Four types of relationships are explored for patterns of change and persistence: friend, family, social, and professional. Interestingly, there is relatively little change in the social network structures across generations. Table 5.2 lists, in order of greatest percent change, the variables associated with structural assimilation. TABLE 5.2 Percentages for Indicators of Structural Assimilation for First, Second, and Fourth Generation Respondents Measure of Structural Assimilation Percent in Each Generation (in order of greatest percent change)______________ First Second Fourth Chance (1 > l -4lll'> Score on Familism scale (range=4-16) 84.0 50.8 52.8 -31.2 (score of 4-8. low assimilation) Number of Armenian friends (currently) 50.0 48.9 38.0 -12.0 (more than half or all are Armenian) Attend Armenian organizations’ activities/meetings 43.3 45.6 32.7 -10.6 (once a month or more) Deal with Armenian Professionals 55.9 32.3 50.0 -5.9 (three or more) Speak with or visit Armenian Relatives 82.4 62.6 87.8 +5.4 (fairly often to very often) Speak with or visit Armenian Friends 70.6 59.3 69.4 -1.2 (fairly often to very often) While 12% fewer fourth generation than first generation respondents report more than half of their friends to be Armenian, the frequency of their interactions with those Armenian friends is not distinguishable. Furthermore, with regard to the frequency of interaction with Armenian relatives, 87.8% of fourth generation 117 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. respondents reply doing so fairly often or very often compared to 82.4% of first generation respondents. Likewise, a similar percentage of first and fourth generation (55.9% and 50.0%, respectively) report dealing with three or more professionals who are Armenian (e.g., doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants, mechanics, etc.). There is a 10.6% decrease from the first to the fourth generation in the percentage attending activities or meetings of Armenian organizations once a month or more often (43.3% vs. 32.7%). The greatest and only statistically significant change found for these variables is for the percentage scoring eight or less on a sixteen point scale measuring commitment to family. Four statements, adopted from The Longitudinal Study of Generations at the University of Southern California, constitute the familism scale. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they strongly agree, mildly agree, mildly disagree, strongly disagree, or have no opinion to the following: 1. It is the responsibility of adult children to be with their parents in time of serious illness even if the children have moved some distance away from the parents. 2. If a person’s life-style runs so against his family’s values that conflict develops, he should change. 3. A person should talk over important life decisions (such as marriage, employment, and residence) with family members before taking action. 4. Adult children should live close to their parents so that mutual aid might be better carried on. 118 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The possible, and actual, range of scores on the familism scale is four to sixteen: the higher the score, the lower the degree of familism. Whether or not this scale can serve as a measure of assimilation is open to debate. It can be argued that American culture emphasizes an individualistic orientation as opposed to a group orientation. In cultures with a more nonindividualistic philosophy (Japanese, as well as Armenian, and others), the love of the group is more valued than the success of the individual. The mean and median are quite similar at 8.09 and 8.0, respectively, and the distribution is negatively skewed. The Alpha for this scale (N=202) is .7053 while the standardized item Alpha is .7122, both above the .70 standard for internal consistency (see Table 5.3). TABLE 5.3 Reliability Analysis for Familism Scale Correlation Matrix FAMSCAL2 FAMSCAL3 FAMSCAL4 FAMSCAL5 FAMSCAL2 FAMSCAL3 FAMSCAL4 FAMSCAL5 1.0000 .3251 .3640 .3138 1.0000 .5112 .3374 1.0000 .4418 1.0000 N of Cases 202.0 Alpha .7053 Standardized item alpha .7122 119 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Although there was a 31.2 percent decrease between the percentages of the first and fourth generation scoring eight or lower, it should be noted that only 8.4% of the entire sample score twelve or higher (i.e., exhibited a low commitment to family). In fact, there was so little variance on the fifth familism question, “A person should consider the needs of his family as a whole more important than his own,” that it had to be excluded from the scale (see Table 5.4). As Bamberger (1986-87:78) and Bakalian (1993) found, “a strong sense of family duty (bardaganutiun) and a continuing concern for family solidarity remain.” TA BLE 5.4 Frequency, “A person should consider the needs of his family as a whole more important than his own.” Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Strongly Agree 181 61.8 65.1 65.1 Mildly Agree 91 31.1 32.7 97.8 Mildly Disagree 4 1.4 1.4 99.3 Strongly Disagree 2 .7 .7 100.0 Total 278 94.9 100.0 Missing System 15 5.1 Total 293 100.0 Perhaps the most interesting finding here is that four of the six measures of structural assimilation are not typical of a “straight-line” model. The greatest decrease is found between the first and second generations rather than the first and fourth generations. The percentages of fourth generation respondents relying on three or more professionals and speaking/visiting with Armenian friends and relatives are 120 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. higher than those of the second generation and, in all three cases, approach or surpass the percentages of the first generation. These findings do suggest a “boomerang effect” when it comes to reliance on and interaction with one’s ethnic social network. Sum m ary From this overview, some patterns of change and persistence are revealed. Cultural assimilation does appear linearly related to generation. With each passing generation, the ability to speak, read, or write Armenian declines precipitously. The consumption of Armenian food does seem to persist, with the primary difference of where it is eaten—at home or at a restaurant. The reading of Armenian literature (books, newspapers, or magazines) does decrease as generation increases. Persistence of religiosity, however, is striking. While there is a 20.9% decrease in the percentage of those affiliated with an Armenian church from the first to the fourth generation, the percentage decrease of those attending church services two to three times a month or more is only 9.7%. In fact, a greater percentage of fourth generation respondents attend frequently (45.5%) than second generation (38.5%). In Chapter Six, religious affiliation will be used as an independent variable to determine its relationship with the other components of culture that form the cultural assimilation scale. Structural assimilation, in contrast, does not appear to have a directly linear relationship with generation. The connections to Armenian friends, relatives, and 121 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. professionals persist across generations. The changes found in four of the measures of structural assimilation seem to be more illustrative of the “bumpy-line” hypothesis suggested by Gans (1992) or the “Law of Return” proposed by Hansen (1938, 1952). The strong sense of family that many ethnic groups claim to have is persistent across generations in this sample of Armenian-Americans. The fairly strong straight-line relationship for cultural assimilation but not for structural assimilation is the first finding of the combination of assimilation and ethnicity. This finding will be more rigorously explored with regression analysis in the next chapter. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER SIX FINDINGS: TESTS OF HYPOTHESES FOR ASSIMILATION AND ETHNICITY Having presented an overview of the patterns of change (i.e., assimilation) and the patterns of persistence (i.e., ethnicity) for cultural and structural assimilation in the last chapter, the findings of the hypotheses testing for all four dependent variables are presented in this chapter. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed for each of the four measures of assimilation on the following independent variables: generation Armenian, religious affiliation, ethnicity of parents (i.e., percent Armenian ancestry), and years of education completed. Given the available and relevant literature, the primary hypothesis is that all four types of assimilation have occurred within the general population of Armenian descent in the Central San Joaquin Valley and that assimilation is positively correlated with generation. That is, the further back one’s ancestors immigrated to the United States, the more likely one is to exhibit a high degree of cultural assimilation to the host society. Being an “older” ethnic community, as discussed in Chapter Two, one would expect Armenians from this area to be more assimilated than those in the Los Angeles area, for example. It is also hypothesized that social class (as measured by years of education completed) would be positively correlated with all 123 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. types of assimilation and that ancestry would be negatively correlated with all types of assimilation. The more education one has, or the less Armenian ancestry one has, the more likely all types of assimilation have occurred. The fourth independent variable, religious affiliation, is treated as an ordinal variable with ordered categories from lowest to highest degree of “being Armenian.” As discussed in Chapter Two, Christianity and nationhood are very closely intertwined for Armenia. Armenia’s distinction of being “the first nation-state to proclaim Christianity as the state religion in 301” is known by Armenians and non- Armenians alike. The evolution of the Armenian alphabet, language, literature, culture, etc. has a very strong and undeniably Christian influence. From my observations within the Armenian community, the Armenian Orthodox Church tends to be regarded as “more Armenian” and more nationalistic. The Armenian Orthodox Church is by its very nature a national church (known as ‘T he Holy Mother See” by all Armenians, Protestant and Orthodox alike) with its own supreme pontiff (acknowledged as ‘The Catholicos of All Armenians”) who resides in Etchmiadzin, Armenia. Furthermore, the language used in its worship services is primarily Armenian, whereas in the Armenian Protestant denominations English is the primary language. Therefore, “No religious affiliation” is ranked as “the least Armenian,” followed by “Other Christian” and “Armenian Protestant Christian,” with “Armenian Orthodox Christian” being ranked “the most Armenian.” It is hypothesized that religious affiliation, then, would be negatively associated with all types of assimilation. One acknowledging no religious affiliation would be more assimilated 124 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (culturally, structurally, etc.) than someone identifying themselves as an “Armenian Protestant Christian.” Testing Regression Assum ptions Before multiple linear regression analysis can be performed, certain assumptions must be met: the observations must be independent; the relationship between the dependent and the independent variables must be linear; and the distribution of the dependent variable must be normal with a constant variance for each combination of values of the independent variables (Norusis 1997). All of the observations are independent, for only one value per variable from each case is analyzed. To check for linearity, scatterpiot matrices of the independent variables with each of the dependent variables were obtained. Visual inspection of the last row of the matrices suggests that the relationship between the independent variables and three of the four dependent variables is essentially linear (Appendices B, C, and D). Interestingly, in the scatterpiot matrix including identificational assimilation, percent Armenian ancestry and years of education completed revealed a nonlinear relationship (see Appendix E); that is, changes in percent Armenian ancestry or years of education completed have no effect on identificational assimilation. Dropping those two variables from the regression equation did not assist with the other assumption of normality. Because these assumptions were not met for these sets of variables, multiple linear regression analysis was not performed 125 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. on this variable. Instead, ethnic identification was explored through crosstab analyses. To check for normality, residual analyses were conducted. If the distribution of the studentized deleted residuals is normal, then the regression assumption would be met (Norusis 1997). First, stem-and-leaf plots of the residuals were created. The shape of the distribution for the independent variables with cultural assimilation is relatively normal (see Appendix F). It is fairly symmetric and has a single peak. The nine outlying values (one extremely low value and eight extremely high values) are identified in Appendix G, the boxplot of the residuals. In that table, the distribution is revealed as fairly symmetric, since the median is roughly in the middle of the plot. The stem-and-leaf plot revealed the shape of the distribution for the independent variables with structural assimilation to be relatively normal with the peak just being right of center (see Appendix H). There are no outlying values identified in the boxplot of the residuals and the distribution is symmetric, since the median is in the middle of the plot (see Appendix I)- Both the stem-and-leaf plot (see Appendix J) and boxplot (see Appendix K) of the residuals reveal a bimodal distribution for the independent variables with marital assimilation. The reason for this, however, is that the population distribution of the dependent variable is not normal. This is revealed in a histogram of the frequencies for the dependent variable (see Appendix L). To check whether the variance of the dependent variables is the same for all values of the independent variables, scatterplots of the studentized residuals against 126 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the predicted values of the independent variables were obtained. In each of the three scatterplots, the variability of the residuals does not increase or decrease with increasing predicted values and, therefore, this assumption is satisfied for all three dependent variables (see Appendices M, N, and O). Now that the primary assumptions of multiple linear regression analysis have been addressed, the findings from the multiple linear regression and crosstab analyses for the four dependent variables are presented. Cultural Assimilation I have hypothesized that cultural assimilation will be positively related to generation, negatively related to religious affiliation, negatively related to percent Armenian, and positively related to years of education. Table 6.0 presents a test of these hypotheses. The result of the full regression analysis is that 31.3% of the observed variability in cultural assimilation is explained by combined effect of the four independent variables (evidence of the co-existence of assimilation and ethnicity). ANOVA reveals an F of 31, significant at the .001 level, allowing a rejection of the null hypothesis that there is no linear relationship between the dependent variable and the four independent variables. Table 6.0 does reveal two significant predictors of cultural assimilation—generation and religious affiliation. The other two independent variables (percent Armenian and years of education) do not have a statistically significant impact on the dependent variable (hypotheses not 127 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. supported). The standardized beta coefficients allow comparison of the relative contributions of each variable to a prediction of the dependent variable. The standardized beta of .50 for generation is twice as large as the standardized beta for religious affiliation (-.25), demonstrating that generation is far more important in predicting cultural assimilation than the other three variables (hypothesis supported). These results provide partial support for the original hypotheses. The fact that only 31.3% of the variance in cultural assimilation is explained with the combined effect of the four independent variables suggests that other factors are operating, of which retention of ethnicity is likely to be one. Furthermore, that percent Armenian did not have a significant impact on cultural assimilation also suggests some noteworthy support for the notion that ethnicity and assimilation can co-exist. This will be further explored in the crosstab analysis. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TA BLE 6.0 Regression of Cultural Assimilation on Generation, Religious Affiliation, Percent Armenian, and Years of Education Mod*) Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .560 .313 .303 4.7254 ANOVA Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Siq. 1 Regression Residual Total 2768.809 6073.559 8842.368 4 272 276 692.202 22.329 31.000 .000 Coefficients Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Siq. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 18.794 2.781 6.758 .000 Generation Armenian 3.596 .389 .500 9.238 .000 Religious Affiliation -1.470 .306 -.247 -4.808 .000 Percent Armenian 1.083E-02 .018 .031 .588 .557 Years of Education -.200 .104 -.101 -1.910 .057 Consistent with the assumption of assimilation and ethnicity, I wanted to study these relationships in more detail to better note discrepancies in assimilation and ethnicity, for example, to see what percent of later generation respondents do and do not score high on cultural assimilation. Crosstabs allowed for this more “open” display. In the first crosstab table, I explored the relationship between generation (recoded into four categories) and cultural assimilation (recoded into high, moderate, and low). Looking at the “High Cultural Assimilation” and “Low Cultural 129 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Assimilation” categories, there is a clear linear relationship between the two variables (see Table 6.1). The percentage of each generation found in the “High Cultural Assimilation” category increases from 9.1% to 12.5% to 38.1 to 50.0% for the four generations, respectively. Similarly, the percentages found in the “Low Cultural Assimilation” category decrease from 81.8% to 33.0% to 21.2% to 14.0%, respectively. The Pearson chi-square value of 72.40 is significant at the .001 level, indicating that different generations exhibit different degrees of cultural assimilation. To determine the strength and type of association between the two variables, I relied on the Spearman correlation coefficient that ranges in value from -1 to +1 and equals 0 if the two variables analyzed are not linearly related. For this first table, the coefficient of +0.41 was significant at the .001 level, indicating a moderate positive correlation. That is, the further along the generational ladder, the more likely one is to exhibit a high degree of cultural assimilation. The fact that this correlation is moderate rather than strong in degree also supports the assertion that assimilation and ethnicity can co-exist. Furthermore, the crosstab analysis reveals some overlap in percentages. For example, the largest percentage of both second and third generation respondents is not found in the low and high categories of cultural assimilation, but rather in the “moderate” category. Also, although 50% of the fourth generation score high in cultural assimilation (compared to only 9% of the first generation), it is also quite noteworthy that 36% of the fourth generation group exhibit only moderate cultural assimilation and that 14% are in the low category. This suggests that 50% of 130 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. the fourth generation respondents are involved in some mixture of Armenian cultural practices and assimilation activities. TABLE 6.1 Crosstab, Cultural Assimilation by Generation* Generation Armenian 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Total Cultural High 3 11 43 25 82 Assimilation 9.1% 12.5% 38.1% 50.0% 28.9% Moderate 3 48 46 18 115 9.1% 54.5% 40.7% 36.0% 40.5% Low 27 29 24 7 87 81.8% 33.0% 21.2% 14.0% 30.6% Total 33 88 113 50 284 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% *p<.001 Throughout this dissertation, it has been argued that maintaining connection with an Armenian church is likely to keep a considerable part of ethnicity alive and significant. In particular, it is believed that attachment to the Armenian Orthodox Church would heighten ethnic attachment regardless of generation (i.e., attenuating the generation effect predicted by straight-line theory), whereas participation in an Armenian Protestant congregation would allow for more latitude or stretch on the dimensions of assimilation. In short, I want to know if the generation effect on culture would be stronger among Protestant participants than among Orthodox participants. Table 6.2 shows that this is indeed the case. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE 6.2 Crosstab, Cultural Assimilation by Generation, controlling for Religious Affiliation Generation Armenian Religious Affiliation Early Mid Late Total None/ High Cultural 12 17 13 42 Other Christian* Assimilation 70.6% 68.0% 81.3% 72.4% Low Cultural 5 8 3 16 Assimilation 29.4% 32.0% 18.8% 27.6% Total 17 25 16 58 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Armenian Protestant High Cultural 9 16 7 32 Christian** Assimilation 36.0% 66.7% 100.0% 57.1% Low Cultural 16 8 24 Assimilation 64.0% 33.3% 42.9% Total 25 24 7 56 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Armenian Orthodox High Cultural 16 35 13 64 Christian*** Assimilation 20.8% 56.5% 50.0% 38.8% Low Cultural 61 27 13 101 Assimilation 79.2% 43.5% 50.0% 61.2% Total 77 62 26 165 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% "not significant **p<.005 ***p<.001 The effect of generation on cultural assimilation is very strong among Armenian Protestant Christians (“High Cultural Assimilation” category increases from 36.0% to 66.7% to 100% for the early, mid, and late generations, respectively) and notably weaker among Armenian Orthodox Christians (“High” category goes from 20.8% to 56.5% to 50.0%, respectively). It is also interesting that among those with a non-Armenian church affiliation or with no religious affiliation, generation no longer has an effect—virtually all respondents score high in cultural assimilation. This suggests support for the idea that for cultural assimilation there is an interaction 132 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. effect between religious affiliation and generation. Further inquiry with a product term test for interaction found this to be the case. In other words, the differences found in the crosstab did not occur by chance, for even after the individual effects of generation and religious affiliation, the interaction term (generation x religious affiliation) is statistically significant in the regression equation (standardized beta coefficient of -.196, p<.05). The crosstab analysis of cultural assimilation by religious affiliation reveals a linear relationship (see Table 6.3). The percentage of those in the “High Cultural Assimilation” category decreases from 55.2% to 25.0% to 20.4% for the three categories of religious affiliation, None/Other Christian, Armenian Protestant, and Armenian Orthodox, respectively. Similarly, the percentage of those with “Low Cultural Assimilation” increases from 12.1% to 28.6% to 38.9% for the three categories of religious affiliation, respectively. The Pearson chi-square value of 30.05 is significant at the .001 level, indicating that different religious affiliations exhibit different degrees of cultural assimilation. Spearman’s correlation coefficient of -0.29 was significant at the .001 ievel, indicating a weak to moderate negative correlation. That is, respondents who are members of Armenian Christian faith communities, both Protestant and Orthodox, are more likely to be less culturally assimilated than those with no religious affiliation or affiliation with some other Christian community. The Armenian churches seem to be the repository of Armenian ethnic culture. 133 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TA BLE 6.3 Crosstab, Cultural Assimilation by Religious Affiliation* Reliaious Affiliation Total None/ Other Christian Armenian Protestant Christian Armenian Orthodox Christian (Cultural High Assimilation 32 55.2% 14 25.0% 34 20.4% 80 28.5% Moderate 19 32.8% 26 46.4% 68 40.7% 113 40.2% Low 7 12.1% 16 28.6% 65 38.9% 88 31.3% Total 58 100.0% 56 100.0% 167 100.0% 281 100.0% •p<.001 Crosstab analyses of cultural assimilation by percent Armenian ancestry revealed no significant relationship. Although the percentage of those respondents with 93-100% Armenian ancestry was slightly lower for the “High Cultural Assimilation” category and slightly higher for the “Low Cultural Assimilation category than those respondents with 50-75% Armenian ancestry, the difference was not statistically significant. This is particularly noteworthy, as many in the general population believe ethnicity and especially maintenance of ethnic culture to be directly related to one’s biological heritage. Structural Assimilation I have hypothesized that structural assimilation will be positively related to generation, negatively related to religious affiliation, negatively related to percent Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Armenian, and positively related to years of education. Table 6.4 presents a test of these hypotheses. The result of the full regression analysis is that only 19.8% of the observed variability in structural assimilation is explained by the combined effect of the four independent variables. Thus, as was hinted at in the descriptive findings in Chapter Five, structural assimilation appears to be very far from a straight-line assimilation story. ANOVA reveals an F of 15.38, significant at the .001 level, allowing a rejection of the null hypothesis that there is no linear relationship between the dependent variable and the four independent variables. Table 6.4 reveals only one significant predictor of structural assimilation— religious affiliation. The value of the dependent variable (i.e., structural assimilation) decreases by 2.23 when the value of religious affiliation increases by one and the values of the other independent variables do not change. The other three independent variables (generation, percent Armenian, and years of education) do not have a statistically significant impact on the dependent variable (hypotheses not supported). The standardized beta of -.43 for religious affiliation compared to the standardized betas of the other variables (which ranged from .07 to -.002) shows the overpowering strength of religious affiliation as a predictor of structural assimilation relative to the other variables. These results provide partial support for the original hypotheses. The fact that both generation and percent Armenian did not have a significant impact on structural assimilation corroborates the contention that ethnicity and assimilation can co-exist and that assimilation is not necessarily linear. This will be further explored in the crosstab analysis. 135 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TA BLE 6.4 Regression of Structural Assimilation on Generation, Religious Affiliation, Percent Armenian, and Years of Education Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .444 .198 .185 4.3155 ANOVA Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Siq. 1 Regression 1145.996 4 286.499 15.384 .000 Residual 4655.863 250 18.623 Total 5801.859 254 Coefficients Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Siq. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 12.909 2.592 4.980 .000 Generation Armenian .422 .373 .069 1.131 .259 Religious Affiliation -2.229 .297 -.434 -7.496 .000 Percent Armenian 4.045E-03 .017 .014 .238 .812 Years of Education -3.02E-03 .099 -.002 -.030 .976 To explore the relationships between structural assimilation (recoded into high, moderate, and low) and the independent variables in more detail, crosstab analyses were conducted. The percentages of each religious affiliation scoring “high” and “low” reveal a clear linear relationship (see Table 6.5). The percentages of the “High Structural Assimilation” category decrease from 69.2% to 28.0% to 23.4% for the three categories of religious affiliation— None/Other Christian, Armenian Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Protestant, and Armenian Orthodox, respectively. Similarly, the percentages found in the “Low Structural Assimilation” category increase from 1.9% to 36.0% to 39.6%, respectively. The Pearson chi-square value of 43.78 is significant at the .001 level indicating that individuals with different religious affiliations exhibit different degrees of structural assimilation; the Spearman correlation coefficient of -.349 is significant at the .001 level, indicating a moderate negative correlation. That is, respondents who are members of Armenian Christian faith communities, both Protestant and Orthodox, are more likely to be less structurally assimilated than respondents with no religious affiliation or affiliation with some other Christian community. This relationship was unaffected when controlling for generation. The Armenian churches seem to be the cornerstone of social, professional, and personal relationships with others of Armenian descent. TABLE 6.5 Crosstab, Structural Assimilation by Religious Affiliation* Reliaious Affiliation Total None/ Other Christian Armenian Protestant Christian Armenian Orthodox Christian Structural High 36 14 36 86 Assimilation 69.2% 28.0% 23.4% 33.6% Moderate 15 18 57 90 28.8% 36.0% 37.0% 35.2% Low 1 18 61 80 1.9% 36.0% 39.6% 31.3% Total 52 50 154 256 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% •p<.001 137 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The separate crosstab analyses of structural assimilation by generation and percent Armenian also revealed insignificant relationships. Although there were percentage differences in the “Low Structural Assimilation" and “High Structural Assimilation” categories across generations and across the levels of Armenian ancestry, they were not statistically significant (chi-square values of 4.39 and S.98, respectively). Once again, these findings suggest support for the argument that structural assimilation is not necessarily linear, nor is it completely a function of one’s biological makeup. M arital Assimilation I have hypothesized that marital assimilation will be positively related to generation, negatively related to religious affiliation, negatively related to percent Armenian, and positively related to years of education. Table 6.6 presents a test of these hypotheses. The result of the full regression analysis is that only 13.1% of the observed variability in marital assimilation is explained by the combined effect of the four independent variables. This contrasts with the prediction of straight-line theory and suggests support for the co-existence of assimilation and ethnicity. ANOVA reveals an F of 8.61, significant at the .001 level, allowing a rejection of the null hypothesis that there is no linear relationship between the dependent variable and the four independent variables. Table 6.6 reveals two significant predictors of marital assimilation—generation and religious affiliation. The value of the dependent 138 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. variable (i.e., marital assimilation) increases by .325 when the value of generation increases by one and the values of the other independent variables do not change. In contrast, the value of the dependent variable decreases by .239 when the value of religious affiliation increases by one and the values of the other independent variables do not change. The other two independent variables (percent Armenian and years of education) do not have a statistically significant impact on the dependent variable (hypotheses not supported). Comparing the standardized betas reveals that generation (+.25) and religious affiliation (-.23) have roughly the same strength and are much better predictors of marital assimilation than the other variables (-.04 and -.02, respectively). These results provide partial support for the original hypotheses. The fact that percent Armenian did not have a significant impact on marital assimilation substantiates the assertion that ethnicity and assimilation can co-exist. This will be further explored in the crosstab analysis. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TA BLE 6.6 Regression of Marital Assimilation on Generation, Religious Affiliation, Percent Armenian, and Years of Education Modal Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .362 .131 .116 .8957 ANOVA Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Siq. 1 Regression 27.636 4 6.909 8.612 .000 Residual 182.913 228 .802 Total 210.549 232 Coafficiants Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 1.871 .610 3.066 .002 Generation Armenian .325 .085 .254 3.826 .000 Religious Affiliation -.239 .066 -.227 -3.625 .000 Percent Armenian -2.69E-03 .004 -.042 -.648 .518 Years of Education -7.64E-03 .021 -.024 -.358 .720 Consistent with the assumption of assimilation and ethnicity, I relied on crosstab analyses to uncover the discrepancies in assimilation and ethnicity, for example, to determine what percentage of each generation had or had not intermarried. In the first crosstab table, I explored the relationship between generation (recoded into four categories) and marital assimilation (recoded into two categories—the seven individuals who married someone of “part” Armenian descent were excluded from the crosstab analyses). There is a clear linear relationship 14 0 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. between the generation and marital assimilation (see Table 6.7). The percentage of each generation that has intermarried increases from 23.1% to 23.5% to 45.6% to 61.3% for the four generations, respectively. The Pearson chi-square value of 19.44 is significant at the .001 level and the Spearman correlation coefficient of +.28 was significant at the .001 level, indicating a weak to moderate positive correlation. That is, the further along the generational ladder, the more likely one is to exhibit a high degree of marital assimilation. TABLE 6.7 Crosstab, Marital Assimilation by Generation* Generation Armenian Total 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Ethnicity of Not ot Armenian descent Spouse 6 23.1% 20 23.5% 41 45.6% 19 61.3% 86 37.1% Entirely of Armenian descent 20 76.9% 65 76.5% 49 54.4% 12 38.7% 146 62.9% Total 26 100.0% 65 100.0% 90 100.0% 31 100.0% 232 100.0% •p<.001 I suspect that the relationship between generation and marital assimilation will be much stronger among Protestant Armenians where there would likely be more leeway and tolerance for an inter-ethnic marriage than among Orthodox Armenians where there would likely be more constraint toward inter-ethnic marriage. In order to meet the required cell counts when examining this relationship while controlling for religious affiliation, generation had to be recoded into two categories. The first two categories of generation were collapsed into one (early generation), and the last two categories were collapsed into one (late generation). Table 6.8 reveals that although 141 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. generation is significant for both Armenian Orthodox and Protestants, it is notably stronger for the latter. This suggests the presence of an interaction effect between religious affiliation and generation. Further inquiry with a product term test for interaction confirmed this. In other words, the differences in the crosstab are not due to chance, as there is something occurring independent of the individual effects of generation and religious affiliation, especially among Armenian Protestants. The interaction term (generation x religious affiliation) just misses statistical significance at the .O S level in the regression equation (standardized beta coefficient of -.182, p=.066). TABLE 6.8 Crosstab, Marital Assimilation by Generation, controlling for Religious Affiliation Current Religious Affiliation Generation Armenian Eartv Late Total Other Christian* Spouse not of Armenian descent 10 66.7% 11 78.6% 21 72.4% Spouse entirely of Armenian descent 5 33.3% 3 21.4% 8 27.6% Total 15 14 29 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Armenian Protestant” Spouse not of Armenian descent 7 20.0% 12 66.7% 19 35.8% Spouse entirely of Armenian descent 28 80.0% 6 33.3% 34 64.2% Total 35 18 53 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Armenian Orthodox” Spouse not of Armenian descent 17 18.9% 20 45.5% 37 27.6% Spouse entirely of Armenian descent 73 81.1% 24 54.5% 97 72.4% Total 90 44 134 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% ‘not significant ” p=.001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The crosstab analysis of marital assimilation by religious affiliation reveals a linear relationship (see Table 6.9). The percentage of intermarriage decreases from 72.4% to 35.8% to 27.6% for the three categories of religious affiliation, Other Christian, Armenian Protestant, and Armenian Orthodox, respectively. The Pearson chi-square value of 20.86 is significant at the .001 level and Cramer's V (-.311) was significant at the .001 level, indicating a weak to moderate negative correlation. That is, members of Armenian Christian faith communities, both Protestant and Orthodox, are less likely to be intermarried than those affiliated with some other Christian community. The Armenian churches appear to be a moderating factor in marital assimilation. TABLE 6.9 Crosstab, Marital Assimilation by Religious Affiliation* Current Reliaious Affiliation Totel Other Christian Armenian Protestant Armenian Orthodox Ethnicity of Not of Armenian descent Spouse 21 72.4% 19 35.8% 37 27.6% 77 35.6% Entirely of Armenian descent 8 27.6% 34 64.2% 97 72.4% 139 64.4% Total 29 100.0% 53 100.0% 134 100.0% 216 100.0% *p<.001 I also wanted to determine where inter-ethnic marriages were most likely to take place. There are different church doctrines about who is eligible to receive sacraments. For example, in the Armenian Orthodox Church, unlike the Protestant churches, the sacrament of marriage can only be blessed when both individuals are Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. baptized and/or confirmed members of the Orthodox faith. So, inter-faith marriages, including other non-Orthodox Christian faiths, could not occur in an Armenian Church setting without conversion/confirmation to its teachings. Crosstab analysis revealed a linear relationship between location of marriage ceremony and intermarriage (see Table 6.10). The percentage of intermarried decreased from 73.7% to 66.7% to 37.1% to 20.5% for civil marriages and those occurring in other Christian, Armenian Protestant, and Armenian Orthodox churches, respectively. The Pearson chi-square value of 43.92 is significant at the .001 level and the Spearman correlation coefficient of -.427 was significant at the .001 level, indicating a moderate negative correlation. That is, those marriages that are performed in Armenian churches, both Protestant and Orthodox, are less likely to be intermarriages. TABLE 6.10 Crosstab, Marital Assimilation by Location of Marriage Ceremony1 " Location of Marriaae Ceremony Total Civil Marriage Other Christian Armenian Protestant Armenian Orthodox Ethnicity Not of Armenian descent of Spouse 14 73.7% 32 66.7% 13 37.1% 26 20.5% 85 37.1% Entirely of Armenian descen 5 26.3% 16 33.3% 22 62.9% 101 79.5% 144 62.9% Total 19 100.0% 48 100.0% 35 100.0% 127 100.0% 229 100.0% *p<.001 Separate crosstab analyses of marital assimilation by percent Armenian and by years of education (recoded into four categories) revealed Pearson chi-square values (2.10 and 4.58, respectively) to be insignificant. Although there were slight 144 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. differences in the percentage of intermarried across the categories, these differences were not statistically significant. One other variable seemed it would have a significant impact on marital assimilation— how often one dated others of Armenian descent compared to non- Armenians. A crosstab analysis of these two variables revealed an association (see Table 6.11). The independent variable was measured on a Likert scale from 1 to 5: “Always non-Armenians,” “Mostly non-Armenians,” “Roughly the same,” “Mostly Armenians,” and “Always Armenians.” The percentage of intermarried decreased from 72.0% to 67.2% to 39.1% to 13.2% to 2.8% for the five categories of the independent variable, respectively. The Pearson chi-square value of 66.84 is significant at the .001 level and the Spearman correlation coefficient of -.341 was significant at the .001 level, indicating a strong negative correlation. The greater the proportion of one’s dates that are of Armenian descent, the less likely one will marry someone not of Armenian descent. That is, the ethnicity of one’s dates can predict the ethnicity of one’s future spouse. TABLE 6.11 Crosstab, Marital Assimilation by Ethnicity of Dates* E thnicity o f D ates Total Alw ays non-A rm enian M ostly non-A rm enian S am e • of A rm enian and non-A rm enian M ostly Arm enian A lw ays A rm enian d m n icity N ot o f A rm enian 18 41 18 7 1 85 o f S pouse descent 72.0% 67.2% 39.1% 13.2% 2.8% 38.5% E ntire ly o f Arm enian 7 20 28 46 35 136 descent 28.0% 32.8% 60.9% 86.8% 97.2% 61.5% T o tal 25 61 46 53 36 221 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100 0% 100.0% *p<.001 145 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Identificational Assimilation I have hypothesized that identificational assimilation will be positively related to generation, negatively related to religious affiliation, negatively related to percent Armenian, and positively related to years of education. This section presents a test of these hypotheses. Because the required assumptions were not met for the four independent variables and this dependent variable, multiple linear regression analysis was not performed. Instead, identificational assimilation was explored using crosstab analyses. The fact that some hypotheses are supported while others are not and that significant correlations, even when found, are weak to moderate in strength suggests that assimilation and ethnicity can co-exist. In exploring the relationship between identificational assimilation and generation, although the Pearson chi-square value of 14.63 is significant at the .05 level, indicating that different generations exhibit different degrees of identificational assimilation, the Spearman correlation coefficient of .122 was not significant. From the percentages in Table 6.12, we can see that the primary difference in identificational assimilation is between the first generation and later generations (hypothesis partially supported). The percentage of first generation respondents exhibiting high identificational assimilation is only 20.8%, while the percentage for each of the other three generations ranges from 34.2% to 38.6%. Similarly, the percentage of first generation respondents registering low identificational assimilation 146 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. is 58.3% compared to a range of 20.5% to 28.4% for the other three generations. Clearly, identificational assimilation is different than the other types of assimilation when it comes to generation. It is not linear, but rather persistent. Because of low cell counts for the first generation, I was unable to perform a second crosstab of this relationship controlling for religious affiliation. TA BLE 6.12 Crosstab, Identificational Assimilation by Generation* Generation Armenian 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Total Identificational High Assimilation 5 20.8% 25 34.2% 34 38.6% 15 38.5% 79 35.3% Moderate 5 32 29 16 82 20.8% 43.8% 33.0% 41.0% 36.6% Low 14 58.3% 16 21.9% 25 28.4% 8 20.5% 63 28.1% Total 24 100.0% 73 100.0% 88 100.0% 39 100.0% 224 100.0% •p<.05 The second independent variable, religious affiliation, did exhibit a linear relationship with identificational assimilation (see Table 6.13). The percentages of the “High Identificational Assimilation" category decrease from 65.9% to 38.8% to 23.5% for the three categories of religious affiliation—None/Other Christian, Armenian Protestant, and Armenian Orthodox, respectively (hypothesis supported). Similarly, the percentages found in the “Low Identificational Assimilation” category increase from 2.4% to 32.7% to 35.6%, respectively. The Pearson chi-square value of 30.56 is significant at the .001 level and the Spearman correlation coefficient -.325 is 147 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. significant at the .001 level, indicating a weak to moderate negative correlation. That is, respondents who are members of Armenian Christian faith communities, both Protestant and Orthodox, are more likely to be less identificationally assimilated than respondents with no religious affiliation or affiliation with some other Christian community. The Armenian churches seem to be a root factor of ethnic identification. TABLE 6.13 Crosstab, Identificational Assimilation by Religious Affiliation* Reliaious Affiliation None/ Other Christian Armenian Protestant Christian Armenian Orthodox Christian Total Identificational High Assimilation 27 65.9% 19 38.8% 31 23.5% 77 34.7% Moderate 13 14 54 81 31.7% 28.6% 40.9% 36.5% Low 1 16 47 64 2.4% 32.7% 35.6% 28.8% Total 41 49 132 222 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% *p<.001 The third independent variable, percent Armenian, was not related to identificational assimilation at all (hypothesis not supported) (see Table 6.14). In fact, roughly equal proportions from each category of the dependent variable— 50- 88% Armenian and 93-100% Armenian—exhibited “Low Identificational Assimilation” (40.0% and 43.5%, respectively). The Pearson chi-square value of .11 is not significant. In sharp contrast to general public perception, ethnic identification is not directly related to one’s biological makeup. The social construction of identity will be explored in the next chapter. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE 6.14 Crosstab, Identificational Assimilation by Percent Armenian* Percent Armenian ancestry Total 1/2 - 7/8 Armenian parentage 9 /10-all Armenian parentage Identificational High Assimilation 15 60.0% 113 56.5% 128 56.9% Low 10 40.0% 87 43.5% 97 43.1% Total 25 100.0% 200 100.0% 225 100.0% *p=.739 The fourth independent variable, education (using either years of education completed or highest degree obtained), was also unrelated to identificational assimilation (hypothesis not supported) (see Table 6.15). The Pearson chi-square value of .70 is not significant. TABLE 6.15 Crosstab, Identificational Assimilation by Years of Education* Years of education Total 7-12 years 13-15 years 16 years 17-24 years Identificational High Assimilation 23 56.1% 32 60.4% 18 51.4% 53 57.0% 126 56.8% Low 18 43.9% 21 39.6% 17 48.6% 40 43.0% 96 43.2% Total 41 100.0% 53 100.0% 35 100.0% 93 100.0% 222 100.0% *p=.874 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Summary In this chapter, the four types of assimilation—cultural, structural, marital, and identificational— were treated as dependent variables in multiple linear regression and crosstab analyses. The four primary independent variables used in the analyses were generation, religious affiliation, percent Armenian ancestry, and years of education. There are varying degrees of these forms of assimilation with this sample population. The findings provide partial support for the hypotheses. First, percent Armenian and years of education were not found to be correlated with any of the four types of assimilation. These findings contradict existing research. In the review of the literature, I noted that the shedding of the ethnic culture and identity often accompanies educational mobility. Why this has not happened with the members of this sample could be explained as being the opposite of the "anti-intellectuallism effect” found in some other ethnic, racial, or religious groups (Covello 1967; Greeley 1962; McWhorter 2000; Rigney and Hoffman 1993). Instead of minimizing the importance of education or looking at educational advancement as “selling out,” Armenians entered this country with a strong emphasis on education. Indeed, parents have sacrificed greatly for their children’s education. Education is viewed as an important ingredient to success in the United States and Armenians have, by and large, achieved upward social mobility due in large part to their pursuit of advanced education. That percent Armenian is also not correlated for any of these variables is also particularly fascinating. Bloodline and ancestry are 150 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. often assumed to be essential characteristics defining ethnicity. However, maintenance of the Armenian culture, integration with Armenian networks, marriage to a person of Armenian descent, and identifying as Armenian and as a member of the ethnic group seem to not be affected by different amounts of Armenian ancestry. This finding provides strong support for the notion of assimilation and ethnicity. It is not a zero sum equation. One can exhibit degrees of assimilation in some areas and degrees of ethnic retention in others. The other two independent variables, generation and religious affiliation, exhibited interesting and interactive effects. The primary hypothesis that generation is positively correlated with all four types of assimilation was generally not supported, but religious affiliation proved to have strong positive correlations with all four dependent variables. Generation was found to be significant in the regression equations for cultural and marital assimilation. However, when controlling for religious affiliation, the relationship with both dependent variables was altered. While the effect of generation remained strong for Armenian Protestants, it was notably weaker for Armenian Orthodox; and for those respondents not affiliated with an Armenian church (either Protestant or Orthodox), generation no longer had any effect (a super-majority of respondents score high in cultural and marital assimilation). This suggests that from the beginning of one’s entrance to American society participation in Armenian faith communities assists with individuals’ retention of Armenian culture and moderates marital assimilation. Generation was only weakly associated with identificational assimilation and the relationship was not 151 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. linear. Although identificational assimilation slightly increases from the first to the second generation, it remains rather persistent across the second, third, and even fourth generation. The Armenian churches are also a key factor in preventing identificational assimilation. The only variable that was correlated with structural assimilation was religious affiliation. The Armenian churches seem to be a building block for social, professional, and personal relationships with others of Armenian descent. The pattern for generation is perhaps the biggest challenge to straight-line theory. Generation was by far the strongest predictor of cultural assimilation, and this could be seen in more open form in Chapter Five as well. However, its total lack of predictive power for structural assimilation clearly suggests that while cultural practices and language may fade with each successive generation, later-generation Armenian-Americans are keeping strong ethnic social attachments—an example of assimilation and ethnicity. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER SEVEN THREE FURTHER EXPLORATIONS OF THE CO-EXISTENCE OF ASSIMILATION AND ETHNICITY In the two previous chapters, the findings presented have lent support for the conceptualization of assimilation and ethnicity. The “line” of assimilation has, in some cases, been straight, in others, bumpy, and in still others, zigzagged. I have shown examples of both linear assimilation and retention of ethnicity and combinations of the two, and it is precisely these mixed profiles that can illuminate the processes of assimilation and ethnicity. In this chapter, I further explore three related aspects—ethnic identity, the persistence of ethnicity in later generation respondents, and marital assimilation. The exploration of ethnic identity is an attempt to demonstrate the distinctiveness of ethnic identity from ethnicity and from assimilation. Ethnic identity is seemingly a relatively “independent” phenomenon. Because identity is socially constructed, it fluctuates in loyalty, strength, importance, relevance, and form. Adaptable to changing social and cultural structures, new forms of ethnic identity emerge that are not necessarily less important or valid than older forms (Romanucci-Ross and De Vos 1995). As noted by Alba and Chamlin (1983:241), Bakalian (1993:332), Isajiw (1990), and Yinger (1994:44, 347), there is a need to 153 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. understand the intensity and forms of ethnic identity, particularly in later generations. This investigation segues into an exploration into the persistence of ethnicity in later generations. An examination of the “deviant” cases from the “straight-line” theory is necessary if a new paradigm is to be constructed. How is it that ethnic culture and/or ethnic identity persist into later generations? What are the factors that differentiate those individuals from those exemplifying the outcome predicted by the straight-line hypothesis? Does a pattern emerge or is it random? Is Gordon right about structural assimilation being the “keystone of the arch of assimilation”? (1964:81) Finally, the marriage relationship is considered the most intimate primary social group, and intermarriage has been the subject of much research attempting to understand its interaction with other forms of assimilation and its impact on ethnic identification. It is even considered, by some, to be a threat to the survival and maintenance of an ethnic community and, therefore, is often discouraged or not accepted. Is that attitude warranted or does it, in fact, become a self-fulfilling prophecy? Perhaps intermarriage is just another piece of the puzzle of ethnicity and assimilation. It does not necessarily follow that intermarriage is a cause of assimilation. The “straight-line” assimilation assumptions about intermarriage demand investigation and testing. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ethnic Identity Ethnic identity, as discussed in Chapter Four, is a fluid and social construct. In designing the survey questions, I distinguished between social identity (i.e., how one responds to the interpersonal question, “What is your ethnic background”), personal identity (“How do you think of yourself?”), and collective identity (“Do you consider yourself a member of the Armenian ethnic group?”). I also wanted to examine the fluidity of ethnic identification. Does it change over time? (“Have you always thought of yourself this way?” “Do you consider yourself a member of the Armenian ethnic group currently? Did you when you were growing up?”) Furthermore, in my review of the literature, I cited a 1981 study by Der-Karabetian and Der-Karabetian that surveyed California Armenians. One of the questions contained in their survey asked respondents to “Rank order the following six factors that define Armenian identity: Speak Armenian, Know history, Active in organizations, Have Armenian parents. Identify with Armenian people, and Believe in Armenian cause.” I included a similar question in my survey that will allow exploration into the different perceptions that exist with regard to group definitions and boundaries and demonstrate the socially constructed nature of ethnic identity. Examination of these questions will help further the understanding of the complex nature of ethnic identification. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Types o f Ethnic Identity. Ethnic identity is a multifaceted concept that can be conceived as a social-psychological phenomenon. The European social psychologists Tajfel and Turner (1979, 1986) distinguish between two aspects of identity: personal and social. Cheek (1989) and his associates (Cheek, Underwood, and Cutler 1985) further delineate social identity: social identity refers to “the self in relation to others (i.e., in interpersonal domains),” with regard to, for example, one’s reputation (Luhtanen and Crocker 1992:302); collective identity, similar to Tajfel and Turner’s social identity, refers to the sense of “we-ness” (i.e., peoplehood), of affinity, closeness, or belonging to a particular group. In my review of the literature of ethnic identity, I have observed a variety of aspects or “levels” of ethnic identification (cf. Garza and Herringer 1987; Kinket and Verkuyten 1997). I will examine three forms of ethnic identity: social, personal, and collective. Social Identity. The survey began with the open-ended question, “When others ask you what your ethnic background is, what do you answer?” More than three-fourths of respondents (77.2%) responded with “Armenian.” Just over 10% of respondents replied, "Armenian-American” or “American Armenian,” while nearly 3% listed “American of Armenian descent.” Approximately 7% listed Armenian along with another or several other ethnic ancestries, and 2% listed Armenian along with their own country of origin. Interestingly, only 1.1% did not include “Armenian” in their response, listing only “American” or “Caucasian.” An ancestry analysis from data respondents provided about their parents and grandparents revealed that 15.4% of the sample had mixed Armenian and non-Armenian 156 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ancestries, yet only 7% included an ancestry in addition to Armenian. There may be “external rewards” associated with identifying as “Armenian.” Perhaps the reward is associated with the positive reputation of Valley Armenians due to their advanced upward socio-economic mobility. Whatever the reason, the respondents seem to generally claim Armenian in some way when asked by others about their ethnic background. Personal Identity. On page two of the survey, respondents were asked the following close-ended question: “How do you think of yourself; as an: Armenian, Armenian-American, American, Istanbul-Armenian, Iranian-Armenian, Armenian from Hayastan, Lebanese-Armenian, Other (please specify).” Interestingly, only 14.1% of the respondents checked “Armenian” and 6.2% checked “American." Nearly three-fourths of the sample (74.1%) checked “Armenian-American” or wrote in “American Armenian.” These results seem to support my earlier suggestion that there must be some extrinsic reward for identifying to others as “Armenian,” because most of the respondents include “American” in their personal identification. As a side note, it is difficult to discern the difference between the meaning of “Armenian- American” and “American Armenian.” Some believe that the former signals a stronger Armenian identity, while others believe the latter does. Because of this difference, I was careful not to combine these two groups for statistical analyses because they could obfuscate the results. I suggest that Americans of Armenian descent refer to themselves as Armenian-Americans because the latter is the noun 157 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. while the former is the adjective. We all, by virtue of living in America, are Americans, and Armenian identifies what kind of American. Collective Identity. Finally, on page five of the survey, respondents were asked the following close-ended question: “Do you consider yourself a member of the Armenian ethnic group currently?” The response categories were: “No, not at all; Not very much; Yes, somewhat; Yes, quite a bit; Yes, very much so.” Nearly 40% of the sample responded “Yes, very much so” (see Table 7.0). Interestingly, 10.6% responded “No, not at all” or “Not very much,” and subsequent analyses attempted to tease out the similarities among respondents in this group. TABLE 7.0 Frequency, Current Collective Identity Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Consider self No, not at all 9 3.1 3.1 3.1 a member of Not very much 22 7.5 7.6 10.8 Armenian ethnic group Ves, somewhat 55 18.8 19.1 29.9 Yes, quite a bit 87 29.7 30.2 60.1 Yes, very much so 115 39.2 39.9 100.0 Total 288 100.0 Of the 31 respondents responding not at all or not very much (18 females and 13 males), it is interesting to note that they tend to have high levels of all three types of assimilation: cultural assimilation (only S with low assimilation), structural assimilation (only 2 with low assimilation), identificational assimilation (none with 158 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. low assimilation). Similarly, half (14) are not affiliated with an Armenian church and about half (13) are married to someone not of Armenian descent. Perhaps the most surprising demographic findings are that 25 of the 31 are 60 years old or older and 28 have 100% Armenian ancestry. One would expect that older respondents and respondents entirely of Armenian descent would be likely to identify as members of the Armenian ethnic group. Fluidity o f Ethnic Identity. Two questions in the survey attempted to get at the fluctuation of ethnic identification. After responding to the above-noted question (“How do you think of yourself; as an ...”) on page two of the survey, respondents were asked: “Have you always thought of yourself in this way?” Only 8.3% of respondents indicated that they had not always thought of themselves the way they do now. The second question was asked on page five of the survey, immediately after the question, "Do you consider yourself a member of the Armenian ethnic group currently?” Respondents were asked, “Did you consider yourself a member of the Armenian ethnic group when you were growing up?” and the two questions had the same five-category response sets, ranging from “No, not at all” to “Yes, very much so.” I created a new variable measuring the change in ethnic group identification by subtracting the latter score from the former score for each individual respondent (range = -4 to +4). Use of a “recall question” is not the preferred method to get at this information, as people have a tendency to want to appear consistent; thus, the recall question often underestimates real change. Even with this caution, 42.8% of the 159 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sample experienced a change in collective identification, suggesting that this form of ethnic identity is quite fluid and fluctuates over time. Table 2 reveals that 28.5% identified more with the Armenian ethnic group than they did while growing up and 14.3% identified less with the Armenian ethnic group than they did while they were growing up. TABLE 7.1 Frequency, Change in Collective Identity Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid -4.00 1 .3 .4 .4 -2.00 9 3.1 3.2 3.6 -1.00 30 10.2 10.7 14.2 .00 161 54.9 57.3 71.5 1.00 57 19.5 20.3 91.8 2.00 16 5.5 5.7 97.5 3.00 6 2.0 2.1 99.6 4.00 1 .3 .4 100.0 Total 281 95.9 100.0 Missing System 12 4.1 Total 293 100.0 These findings suggest the need for longitudinal research on ethnic identity and that research on ethnic identity should take age and other characteristics into consideration. For example, 40 respondents identified with the Armenian ethnic group less now than they did while growing up. Of these, nearly 40% are between the ages of 30-49 (reputed as a time when people question their identity), and another 33% are over 70 years old (a time when many feel isolated from others). In contrast, of the 80 respondents who identified with the Armenian ethnic group more now than Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. they did while growing up, 20% are between the ages of 30-49 and another 20% are over age 70. Most respondents in this latter group (47%) fell in the 50-69 age bracket compared to only 27% of those identifying with the Armenian ethnic group less now than while growing up. The Social Construction o f Ethnic Identity. To demonstrate the social construction of ethnic identity, I included the following question: “Here is a list of things people consider to be important factors defining Armenian identity. First, read through the list of six items [Speaking Armenian, Knowing Armenian history, Being active in Armenian organizations. Feeling proud of one’s Armenian heritage, Identifying with Armenian people. Having Armenian parents]. Then tell us the order in which you would rank them. Write ‘I ’ next the factor that is MOST IMPORTANT. Write ‘2’ next to the SECOND most important, ‘3’ next to the THIRD, and so on.” Based on the mean score for each of the six items, the full sample produced the following ranking: 1. Having Armenian parents 2. Feeling proud of one’s Armenian heritage 3. Identifying with Armenian people 4. Speaking Armenian 5. Knowing Armenian history 6. Being active in Armenian organizations Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. From the frequency distributions, the four items that seemed to be the most controversial or have the greatest ranking disparities were: having Armenian parents, identifying with Armenian people, knowing Armenian history, and speaking Armenian. Crosstab analyses were conducted to determine mitigating factors. It is hypothesized that generational differences will be found regarding which factors are rated most important. Perceptions of what makes a person Armenian are likely to be associated with generation and heavily influenced by the accompanying different “developmental concerns” (cf. Bengtson and Kuypers 1971). Each generation will rank highly the factor most correlated with its own “stake” in the definition of Armenian identity. While the original “developmental stake” or “generational stake” hypothesis was applied to perceptions of the parent-child relationship, here it is applied to the development of ethnic identity. The members of each generation are likely to be in a different developmental stage of their ethnic identity development and have experienced the “development” of their ethnic identity differently. For example, first generation respondents were likely to have been immediately identified by others on the basis of their language and/or English accent. Furthermore, they are more likely to speak Armenian and exhibit a concern for the perpetuation of the Armenian language than respondents from other generations. As a result, this generation will be more likely to rank speaking Armenian highly. Similarly, since second generation respondents were likely to have been identified as Armenian by others on the basis of their parentage rather than on their place of birth, accent, etc., they will likely rank having Armenian parents highly. Finally, since third 162 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and fourth generation respondents are the most likely to have multiple ancestries due to intermarriage and may often have to assert their “Armenianness” to others, they will likely rank feeling proud of one’s Armenian heritage highly. Having Armenian parents was ranked similarly by the first and fourth generations and the second and third generations, although the latter groups ranked it first or second much more often than the former groups (see Table 7.2). I contend, however, that the first and fourth generation respondents ranked it similarly lower for different reasons. The first generation likely took it for granted that one had to have Armenian parents in order to be Armenian, while the fourth generation, due to some of their own experiences of having mixed ancestry, acknowledge that having Armenian parents is not essential to being Armenian. Proportionately, more respondents from the second generation, as predicted, ranked this factor first or second than any other generation. The Pearson chi-square of 16.61 is significant at the .05 level and the Spearman correlation coefficient of +.116 just misses significance at the .05 level. TABLE 7.2 Crosstab, Ranking of Having Armenian Parents by Generation* Generation Armenian Total 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Having Armenian Ranked 1 st or 2nd parents 20 62.5% 75 85.2% 80 74.8% 29 59.2% 204 73.9% Ranked 3rd or 4th 7 21.9% 10 11.4% 15 14.0% 9 18.4% 41 14.9% Ranked 5th or 6th 5 15.6% 3 3.4% 12 11.2% 11 22.4% 31 11.2% Total 32 100.0% 88 100.0% 107 100.0% 49 100.0% 276 100.0% *p=.01 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. As predicted, the third and fourth generations rank identifying with Armenian people first or second much more often than the first or second generations (see Table 7.3). The percentage of each generation ranking this factor first or second increases from 13.3% (first generation) to 34.7% (fourth generation). The Pearson chi-square of 28.24 is significant at the .001 level and the Spearman correlation coefficient of -.297 is also significant at the .001 level, indicating a weak to moderate negative correlation. TABLE 7.3 Crosstab, Ranking of Identifying with Armenian People by Generation* Generation Armenian Total 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Identifying with hanked 1st or 2nd Armenian people 4 13.3% 15 18.3% 33 30.8% 17 34.7% 69 25.7% Ranked 3rd or 4th 11 36.7% 35 42.7% 54 50.5% 28 57.1% 128 47.8% Ranked 5th or 6th 15 50.0% 32 39.0% 20 18.7% 4 8.2% 71 26.5% Total 30 100.0% 82 100.0% 107 100.0% 49 100.0% 268 100.0% •p<.001 As with the first factor (having Armenian parents), knowing Armenian history was similarly ranked by the first and fourth generations and the second and third generations, although the former group ranked it first or second much more often than the latter group (see Table 7.4). I suggest that the first and fourth generation respondents ranked it similarly higher for different reasons. The first generation lived that history and consequently sees that history as important, and the fourth generation is likely to be interested in learning about their roots and ethnic ancestry as 164 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. encouraged by school projects and their grandparents. The Pearson chi-square of 20.91 is significant at the .05 level, but the Spearman correlation coefficient of +.006 is not significant, revealing a nonlinear relationship. TABLE 7.4 Crosstab, Ranking of Knowing Armenian History by Generation* Generation Armenian Total 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Knowing Ranked 1 st or 2nd Armenian 12 41.4% 10 12.3% 10 10.1% 10 20.0% 42 16.2% h islu ry Ranked 3rd or 4th 9 31.0% 30 37.0% 48 48.5% 23 46.0% 110 42.5% Ranked 5th or 6th 8 27.6% 41 50.6% 41 41.4% 17 34.0% 107 41.3% Total 29 100.0% 81 100.0% 99 100.0% 50 100.0% 259 100.0% ■p=.002 As with the second factor (identifying with Armenian people), the ranking of speaking Armenian has a linear relationship to generation (see Table 7.5). As predicted, the third and fourth generations rank this factor fifth or sixth much more often than the first or second generations. The percentage of each generation ranking this factor first or second decreases from 36.7% (first generation) to 10.0% (fourth generation). The Pearson chi-square of 44.93 is significant at the .001 level, and the Spearman correlation coefficient of +.390 is also significant at the .001 level, indicating a moderate positive correlation. 165 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TA BLE 7.5 Crosstab, Ranking of Speaking Armenian by Generation* Generation Armenian Total 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Speaking hanked 1 st or 2nd Armenian 1 1 36.7% 24 27.3% 12 11.9% 5 10.0% 52 19.3% Ranked 3rd or 4th 14 46.7% 40 45.5% 33 32.7% 8 16.0% 95 35.3% Ranked 5th or 6th 5 16.7% 24 27.3% 56 55.4% 37 74.0% 122 45.4% Total 30 100.0% 88 100.0% 101 100.0% 50 100.0% 269 100.0% •p<.001 Summarizing the Exploration o f Ethnic Identity. This investigation into ethnic identity reveals that identity is a fluid and social construct. Clear differences were found between social identity {i.e., how respondents report identity to others), personal identity (i.e., how they think of their identity to themselves), and collective identity (i.e., whether respondents consider themselves a member of the ethnic group). Ethnic identification, like any other social behavior, is situational and contextual. In some situations, ethnic identification may be important, while being less important or not important at all in other circumstances. Ethnic group identification was found to change over time for about half of the sample. These findings suggest that researchers cannot think of ethnic identity as a constant or stable variable and indicate that longitudinal research on ethnic identity is warranted. Finally, ethnic identity was found to be “constructed” differently by different generations. Each generation tended to rank the six defining factors of Armenian identity in different ways, according to its own generational “stake,” position of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. dominance, or lived experience. These analyses help further the understanding of the complex nature of ethnic identification and provide insight into future research on this topic. Ethnicity in Later Generations This section seeks to uncover the characteristics of later-generation Armenian- Americans associated with low levels of cultural, structural, and identificational assimilation according to the scales described in Chapter Two. The investigation also seeks to learn what differentiates later-generation respondents exhibiting low levels of assimilation from those with high levels of assimilation. For this portion of the analysis, only third (i.e., all four grandparents immigrated to this country after six years of age) and fourth generation (i.e., all four grandparents bom in the United States or immigrated before six years of age) respondents were included (N=l 18). Cultural Assimilation. Nineteen later-generation respondents (16.1%) scored between 7 and 23 on a 35-point scale and were categorized as exhibiting “low cultural assimilation” while 57 (48.3%) scored between 29 and 34 and were designated as having “high cultural assimilation.” Table 7.6 presents the six variables with the greatest differences between these two groups. In rank order, the primary variables distinguishing between later-generation respondents exhibiting “low cultural assimilation” versus “high cultural assimilation” are: proportion of Armenian friends, 167 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ethnicity of spouse, sex, religious affiliation (in adulthood), perception of parents’ feelings about being Armenian, and percent Armenian ancestry. TABLE 7.6 Frequency Percentages for Various Characteristics of Third and Fourth Generation Respondents Exhibiting High and Low Levels of Cultural Assimilation Characteristic (in order of greatest percent difference) Percent in Each Category of Assimilation High Low Difference <N=57) <N=19) Proportion of friends that are Armenian (more than half or greater) 19.3 84.2 64.9 Married an Armenian 35.4 88.9 53.5 Male 35.1 63.2 28.1 Affiliated with Armenian church today 62.5 89.5 27.0 Interpreted parents' feeling about ethnicity to be positive or primary 76.5 94.5 18.0 Percent Armenian ancestry 77.2 63.2 14.0 Although both groups reported similar proportions of Armenian friends in elementary school and high school, 84.2% of the low cultural assimilation group reported more than half or almost all of their friends today were Armenian compared to only 19.3% of the high group. Of the married respondents, 88.9% in the low group compared to 35.4% in the high group are married to a person of Armenian descent. Interestingly, 63.2% of the low group are male while only 35.1% of the high group are. This finding is different than some people might expect, for in many ethnic groups women are the culture-bearers. Although the traditional Armenian family has been characterized as patriarchal, patrilineal, patrilocal, and patrinominal, some have argued that “the Genocide, migration, and forces of modernization changed the 168 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. structure and functions of the Armenian family” (Bakalian 1993:370; Bamberger 1986-87). While these data are not substantial enough to call that assertion into question, these findings at least raise the issue of whether culture-keeping is related to gender. A similarly high percentage of both groups reported affiliation with an Armenian church (Orthodox or Protestant) during childhood, but 89.5% of the low group and only 62.5% of the high group are affiliated with one today. The one characteristic shared by nearly all (94.5%) of the respondents in the low group— interpreting parents’ feelings about their Armenian background as positive—was found in only 76.5% of high group. Surprisingly, a greater proportion of the high cultural assimilation group (77.2%) has 100% Armenian ancestry than the low group (63.2%). This finding substantiates the assertion that Armenian ancestry is not a guarantee of maintaining the ethnic culture. Also noteworthy within the low group is the fact that although 82.4% scored “low” on the structural assimilation scale, only 56.3% scored “low” on the identificational assimilation scale. Likewise, 60.4% of the high group exhibited “high structural assimilation” and 55.0% scored “high” on identificational assimilation. I include these findings to lend support for the argument that assimilation is not zero-sum and that one can exhibit high levels of certain types of assimilation while also having low levels of other kinds of assimilation and maintaining some characteristics of one’s ethnicity. Structural Assimilation. Thirty-one later-generation respondents (26.3%) scored between 7 and 14 on a 30-point scale and were categorized as exhibiting “low 169 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. structural assimilation” while 41 respondents (34.7%) scored between 19 and 29 and were counted as having “high structural assimilation.” Table 7.7 presents the variables with the greatest differences between these two groups. In rank order, the primary variables differentiating later-generation respondents with “low structural assimilation” from those with “high structural assimilation” are: ethnicity of spouse, extent of cultural assimilation, extent of identificational assimilation, religious affiliation (in adulthood), proportion of Armenian friends in high school, frequency of family visits with other Armenians (excluding relatives) during childhood, and sex. TABLE 7.7 Frequency Percentages for Various Characteristics of Third and Fourth Generation Respondents Exhibiting High and Low Levels of Structural Assimilation Characteristic Percent in Each Category of Assimilation (in order of greatest percent difference) High (N=41) Low (N=31) Difference Married an Armenian 18.2 81.8 63.6 Low Cultural Assimilation 0.0 53.9 53.9 Low Identificational .Assimilation 4.0 53.9 49.9 Affiliated with Armenian church today 51.2 100.0 48.8 Proportion of Armenian friends in high school (about half or greater) 14.6 51.6 37.0 Family visits with other Armenians in childhood (fairly often to very often) 43.9 71.0 27.1 Male 39.0 58.1 19.1 Consider self part of Armenian ethnic group now 78.0 96.8 18.8 Half or more of friends were Armenian in elementary school 19.5 35.5 16.0 Interpreted parents' feeling about ethnicity to be positive or primary 78.0 93.5 15.5 Attended an Armenian summer camp 26.8 41.9 15.1 Considered self part of Armenian ethnic group 80.0 93.5 13.5 during childhood 170 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Except for percent Armenian ancestry, the key variables differentiating those later-generation respondents scoring high on cultural assimilation from those scoring low also distinguish between the high and low groups for structural assimilation. Of the six most significant differences, three are related to the structural assimilation scale because they deal with the family and friendship structures of respondents. Two variables stand out because of their universality within one of the two groups. Every person (100%) in the low category is currently affiliated with an Armenian church compared to only 51.5% of respondents in the high group. Similarly, not a single respondent in the high structural assimilation group scored “low” on the cultural assimilation scale and only one (4.0%) scored “low” on identificational assimilation, while 53.9% of the low structural assimilation group scored “low” on these other two types of assimilation. Apparently, high levels of structural assimilation prevent retention of ethnic culture and strong ethnic identification. Identificational Assimilation. Twenty-three later-generation respondents (19.5%) scored between 6 and 8 on a 24-point scale and were categorized as exhibiting “low identificational assimilation” compared to 30 respondents (25.4%) who scored between 12 and 19 on the same scale and were counted as having “high identificational assimilation.” Notably, 26.1% of the respondents in the low identificational assimilation group do not have 100% Armenian ancestry. Clearly, just because one is not 100% Armenian does not mean that one does not or will not identify as Armenian. Table 7.8 presents the variables with the greatest differences 171 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. between these two groups. In rank order, the primary characteristics associated with exhibiting “low identificational assimilation” in later generations are: proportion of Armenian friends, perception of parents’ feelings about being Armenian, religious affiliation (in adulthood), frequency of family visits with other Armenians (excluding relatives) during childhood, proportion of Armenian friends in high school, and religious affiliation (in childhood). TABLE 7.8 Frequency Percentages for Various Characteristics of Third and Fourth Generation Respondents Exhibiting High and Low Levels of Identificational Assimilation Characteristic Percent in Each Category of .Assimilation (in order of greatest percent difference) High Low Difference _______________________________________________ (N=30)_(N=23)_______________________ Proportion of friends that are Armenian 20.0 (more than half or greater) Interpreted parents’ feeling about ethnicity 42.3 to be positive or primary Affiliated with Armenian church today 55.2 Family visits with other .Armenians in childhood 46.6 (fairly often to very often) Proportion of Armenian friends in high school 16.7 (about half or greater) Affiliated with Armenian church in childhood 74.8 Considered self part of Armenian ethnic group 79.3 during childhood Married an Armenian 38.5 Proportion of Armenian friends in elementary school 13.3 (about half or greater) Proportion of Armenian neighbors during childhood 13.3 (some or greater) Family income of S 100.000 or more 28.6 172 82.6 62.6 95.5 53.2 100.0 82.6 44.8 36.0 43.5 26.8 100.0 100.0 26.2 20.7 58.8 30.4 20.3 17.1 30.4 17.1 43.5 14.9 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Four traits stand out because they are characteristic of all or nearly all of the respondents in the low assimilation category. Two of the most significant factors, the proportion of one's friends that are Armenian and affiliation with an Armenian church in adulthood, are noteworthy because of the longitudinal change observed in Table 7.8. That is, although similarly high percentages of respondents in both groups reported affiliation with an Armenian church in childhood (74.8% and 100%), the percentage remaining so affiliated in adulthood significantly drops to only 55.2% for the high assimilation group. Likewise, although both groups report similarly low levels of Armenian friends in elementary (13.3% and 30.4%) and high school (16.7% and 43.5%), the percentage of respondents with more than half Armenian friends today increases substantially among the low assimilation group (20.0% vs. 82.6%). Apparently, identificational assimilation is shaped by childhood, adolescent, and adult experiences with and exposure to Armenian social structures. Fourteen respondents in the low identificational assimilation group (63.6%) scored “low” on the structural assimilation scale, and 9 (40.9%) scored “low” on the cultural assimilation scale. Sixteen respondents in the high group (57.1%) exhibited “high structural assimilation,” and 22 (73.3%) scored “high” on cultural assimilation. While there is some correlation between the different measures of assimilation, some differentiation and independence still exists among the scales. These findings add support for the assertion that ethnicity can take different shapes. One may be high on some forms of assimilation, low on others, and moderate on another. 173 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Summarizing the Exploration o f Ethnicity in Later Generations. This section investigated the characteristics of later-generation respondents associated with high and low levels of each type of assimilation. Clearly, different blends of characteristics differentiated between the different levels for each type of assimilation; however, three characteristics played a significant role in distinguishing between the high and low groups for all three types of assimilation. One discriminating characteristic common to all three types of assimilation is respondents’ perception of their parents' feelings about being Armenian. In addition to parents’ explicit encouraging of their children to identify with and retain their Armenian heritage, there may be subtle, often unspoken, ways of conveying one’s feelings about and identification with one’s ethnic background. Knowingly and unknowingly, parents directly impact the transmission of ethnicity and ethnic identity to the next generation. The characteristic most strongly associated with all three types of assimilation is the proportion of one’s friends that are Armenian. Another influential trait was affiliation with an Armenian church. These findings reveal that social “channeling” moderates all three forms of assimilation, thus supporting Gordon’s emphasis on structural assimilation. If one’s ethnic networks are developed, the extent of assimilation is lessened, and ethnic culture and ethnic identity persist into later generations. However, as noted above, if structural assimilation is high, ethnic culture and ethnic identity diminish significantly. Interestingly, contrary to existing theory and the concept of ethciass, neither education nor income were among the top six characteristics distinguishing the high and low categories of any of the three forms 174 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. of assimilation. (However, income was among the top ten for cultural and identificational assimilation, suggesting that it does play some role.) M arital Assimilation Marital assimilation demands further investigation for several reasons. As discussed in the introductory chapter, much of this current research is influenced by my earlier research pertaining to intermarriage. As I have noted earlier, intermarriage has been regarded as “the final test of assimilation” (Nelson 1943:591), “the litmus test of assimilation” (Jiobu 1988:149), “the most severe test of group cohesion” (Drachsler 1920:82), and “the final outcome of assimilation” (Hirschman 1983:408). Furthermore, Gordon (1964:81) saw structural assimilation as the “keystone of the arch of assimilation.” In his view, integration at the primary group level (i.e., the most personal of relationships, e.g., marriage) would inevitably lead to other forms of assimilation. In many ways, these perspectives regarding marital assimilation are at the root of the assimilation versus ethnicity debate and they demand testing. The data I have collected with this current sample allow for an investigation into the following relevant questions and will serve as a test of assimilation and ethnicity and the straight-line theory: How many of the recent marriages are intermarriages? How is marital assimilation related to other types of assimilation? Is intermarriage a cause or consequence of assimilation? Does the Armenian-American community lose 175 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. members through intermarriage or gain new members? How receptive are Armenian family members and church members to those spouses who are not of Armenian descent? What are people’s attitudes about marital assimilation? The findings and implications relevant to these questions will be presented in this section. Rate o f Intermarriage. As reported in Chapter Five, 62.9% of the married respondents is married to a person of Armenian descent. It was also noted that the proportion of those that are intermarried increases as generation increases. Sixty-one percent of the fourth generation is intermarried compared to 23% of the first generation. Further analysis of the marriages by year also reveals a linear relationship (see Table 7.9). The proportion of intermarriages for a given time period increased from 10.0% (1928-1939) to 36.5% (1960-1979) to 69.7% (1990-1998). The Pearson chi-square of 30.75 is statistically significant (p<.001), and the Spearman correlation coefficient of +.358 is also significant at the .001 level, revealing a moderate positive correlation between year of marriage and marital assimilation. TABLE 7.9 Crosstab, Ethnicity of Spouse by Year of Marriage* Year married Total 1928-1939 1940-1959 1960-1979 1980-1989 1990-1998 Ethnicity Not of Armenian of Spouse descent 1 10.0% 17 20.7% 23 36.5% 22 50.0% 23 69.7% 86 37.1% Entirely of Armenian descent 9 90.0% 65 79.3% 40 63.5% 22 50.0% 10 30.3% 146 62.9% Total 10 100.0% 82 100.0% 63 100.0% 44 100.0% 33 100.0% 232 100.0% *px.001 176 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Marital Assimilation and Other Types o f Assimilation. From crosstab analyses of marital assimilation by each of the other three types of assimilation, it appears that a positive correlation exists for each relationship. That is, a person married to someone who is not Armenian is likely to exhibit higher levels of cultural, structural, and identificational assimilation than someone who is married to another Armenian (see Tables 7.10, 7.11, and 7.12). The chi-square values (34.44,40.52, and 2.61, respectively) reveal highly significant relationships between marital assimilation and cultural and structural assimilation (pc.001) but not with identificational assimilation (p=N.S.). The corresponding Spearman correlation coefficients are +.390, +.442, and +.119. While only 42.4% of those categorized as high identificational assimilation are intermarried, 60.6% of those exhibiting high cultural assimilation and 65.7% of those with high structural assimilation are. Furthermore, while 28.6% of those exhibiting low identificational assimilation are intermarried, only 12.5% and 10.9% of those with low cultural and structural assimilation, respectively, are. It should be noted that these findings do not suggest a causal relationship, as no time sequence is established. Whether intermarriage is a cause or consequence of other types of assimilation remains to be determined, and that is the subject under review in the next section. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE 7.10 Crosstab, Ethnicity of Spouse by Cultural Assimilation* Cultural Assimilation Total High Moderate Low Ethnicity of Not of Armenian descent Spouse 40 60.6% 37 39.4% 7 10.9% 84 37.5% Entirely of Armenian descent 26 39.4% 57 60.6% 57 89.1% 140 62.5% Total 66 100.0% 94 100.0% 64 100.0% 224 100.0% •p<-001 TABLE 7.11 Crosstab, Ethnicity of Spouse by Structural Assimilation* Structural Assimilation Total High Moderate Low Ethnicity of Not of Armenian descent Spouse 44 65.7% 24 32.9% 8 12.5% 76 37.3% Entirely of Armenian descent 23 34.3% 49 67.1% 56 87.5% 128 62.7% Total 67 100.0% 73 100.0% 64 100.0% 204 100.0% •p<.001 TABLE 7.12 Crosstab, Ethnicity of Spouse by Identificational Assimilation* Identificational Assimilation Total High Moderate Low Ethnicity of Not of Armenian descent Spouse 28 42.4% 21 32.8% 14 28.6% 63 35.2% Entirely of Armenian descent 38 57.6% 43 67.2% 35 71.4% 116 64.8% Total 66 100.0% 64 100.0% 49 100.0% 179 100.0% *p=.271 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Marital Assimilation: Cause or Consequence o f Assimilation? In order to determine whether or not marital assimilation is a cause or consequence of other types of assimilation, information about the assimilation variables prior to and after the marriage occurs must be available. Ideally, this data would be collected from the same population as part of a longitudinal study. However, I did include several questions in this survey asking for respondents’ recollection of various events and feelings related to the other types of assimilation. It should be noted that responses to recall questions often underestimate change, as people have a tendency to want to appear consistent. The following six recall questions were used with the above-stated caution: Measures of Structural Assimilation “How do you recall your neighborhood being when you were growing up?” (i.e.. How many Armenian neighbors did you have?) “While growing up. how often did you and your family visit with other Armenians (excluding relatives)?” “How many of your friends were Armenian when you were in elementary school? In high school? In college? Today?” “When you dated, how often did you go out with non-Armenians compared to going out with other Armenians?” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Measure of Cultural Assimilation “What church did you and/or your family attend when you were a child? What is your current religious affiliation?” Measure of Identificational Assimilation “Do you consider yourself a member of the Armenian ethnic group ... Currently? When you were growing up?” The Spearman correlation coefficients between marital assimilation and each of these seven variables involving recollection were examined (see Table 7.13). The only statistically significant correlations at the .01 level are those between marital assimilation and the proportion of one's dates that were Armenian (r=.54) and the proportion of one’s friends that were Armenian in college (r=.23). The levels of structural, cultural, and identificational assimilation during childhood (as measured here) are not correlated with marital assimilation. However, it seems that my hypothesis (as stated in Chapter Four) that intermarriage is more likely to occur among individuals who are already assimilated is partially supported. Although intermarriage is not necessarily a consequence of the level of assimilation in childhood, it is positively correlated with structural assimilation in adolescence and young adulthood (i.e., dating and college friends). In other words, the less Armenian one’s social networks are in adolescence or young adulthood, the more likely one is to marry someone who is not Armenian. 180 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE 7.13 Correlations, Ethnicity of Spouse and Recollection Variables Ethnicity of Spouse Spearman's rho Proportion of dates Armenian .541* Proportion of Armenian friends in college .230* Proportion of Armenian friends in high school .107 Proportion of Armenian friends in elementary school -.045 Frequency of visits with Armenian families in childhood .125 Proportion of Armenian neighbors in childhood .067 Considered self a member of Armenian ethnic group when growing u .002 Religious affiliation with an Armenian church during childhood .031 * * ■ Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed) To test whether marital assimilation is a cause of other types of assimilation, one must examine the situation before and after marriage occurs and the analysis must consider individual level change (cf. Giarrusso, Jendian, Feng, Shieh, and Bengtson 1995:292-293). For each type of assimilation, one question asked respondents about a situation/feeling before and after marriage; therefore, I am able to determine for each respondent whether any change occurs after marriage in: identification with the Armenian ethnic group, the proportion of friends that are Armenian, and religious affiliation. These calculations and analyses were done on an individual level, except where aggregate analysis is noted. The correlation between marital assimilation and individual change on each of these variables are all positive, but only one is statistically significant at the .001 level (see Table 7.14). Spearman’s correlation coefficient is strongest for the change in religious affiliation (+.219, p=.001) and weakest for the change in identification with the Armenian ethnic group (+.152, p<.05), while change in the proportion of 1 81 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Armenian friends is in the middle (+.195, p<.01). These findings suggest that marrying an Armenian is associated with a decrease in the different types of assimilation (as measured by these variables); that is, intramarriage seems to reverse the levels of structural, cultural, and identificational assimilation. It should be noted, however, that these relationships are not very strong and that the use of recall questions often underestimates real change. Since the Spearman correlation coefficient ranges in value from -1 to +1 and equals 0 if the two variables are not linearly related, coefficients of .22, .20, and . 15 indicate weak relationships. TABLE 7.14 Correlations, Ethnicity of Spouse and Individual Change in Other Measures of Assimilation Ethnicity of Spouse Spearman's rho Change in Religious Affiliation .219* Change in Identification .152* Change in Friendship Structure .195* * * ■ Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). * • Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). It does not necessarily follow that intermarriage is a cause of assimilation, nor does it indicate a rejection of one’s ethnic identity or heritage (Bakalian 1993; Tinker 1982). I selected only the 86 respondents who are intermarried for further analysis. This investigation revealed some interesting results with regard to each of the other three types of assimilation. Impact on Ethnic Group Identification. I should preface this discussion of the aggregate data by stating that 50 of the 86 intermarried respondents (58.1%) reported no change in ethnic group identification and roughly equal proportions 182 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. reported positive (18.7%) and negative (19.8%) change (and 75.8% of those reporting change only moved one level). On an aggregate level, while 18.1% of those who are intermarried did not identify very much or at all with the Armenian ethnic group while growing up, a smaller percentage (only 15.3%) do not identify very much or at all with the Armenian ethnic group currently (see Tables 7.15 and 7.16). It appears intermarriage is not associated with a change in whether or not one identifies as a member of the Armenian ethnic group, but rather with a change in the strength of that identification. Those identifying with the Armenian ethnic group “very much so” or "quite a bit” decreased from 62.6% to 56.5% while those identifying “somewhat” with the group increased from 19.3 to 28.2%. TABLE 7.15 Frequency (select if Intermarried), Childhood Ethnic Group Identification Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No. not at all 2 2.3 2.4 2.4 Not very much 13 15.1 15.7 18.1 Yes. somewhat 16 18.6 19.3 37.3 Yes. quite a bit 24 27.9 28.9 66.3 Yes, very much so 28 32.6 33.7 100.0 Total 83 100.0 Q. Did you consider yourself a member of the Armenian ethnic group when you were growing up? TABLE 7.16 Frequency (select if Intermarried), Current Ethnic Group Identification Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent No, not at ail 2 2.3 2.4 2.4 Not very much 11 12.8 12.9 15.3 Yes. somewhat 24 27.9 28.2 43.5 Yes, quite a bit 23 26.7 27.1 70.6 Yes, very much so 25 29.1 29.4 100.0 Total 85 100.0 Q. Do you consider yourself a member of the Armenian ethnic group currently? 183 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Impact on Ethnic Friendship Structures. At the aggregate level, the percentage of intermarried respondents reporting fewer than half or about half of their friends being Armenian currently (61.2%) is only slightly higher than when in high school (57.6%). However, 21.2% report more than half or almost all of their current friends are Armenian compared to only 9.4% reporting that situation occurring in high school. On an individual level. 27 of the 86 intermarried respondents (31.4%) reported no change in ethnic friendship structures, and of those reporting change, 86.2% only moved one level, and the majority (65.5%) reported an increase in ethnic friendships. Again, intermarriage is not associated with a general decrease in the proportion of friends that are Armenian (see Tables 7.17 and 7.18). In fact, on an aggregate level, the percentage of those with more than half of their current friends being Armenian more than doubles after marriage to a non-Armenian. TABLE 7.17 Frequency (select if Intermarried), Proportion of High School Friends Armenian Ethnicity of SDOuse Not of Armenian descent Entirely of Armenian descent Total Proportion of None or almost none Armenian friends 28 32.9% 43 29.5% 71 30.7% ... Uyl.ad.uwl Fewer than half 32 43 75 37.6% 29.5% 32.5% About half 17 31 48 20.0% 21.2% 20.8% More than half 4 14 18 4.7% 9.6% 7.8% All or almost all 4 15 19 4.7% 10.3% 8.2% Total 85 146 231 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% *p=.284 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE 7.18 Frequency (select if Intermarried), Proportion of Current Friends Armenian Ethnicity of Spouse Not of Armenian descent Entirely of Armenian descent Total Proportion of None or almost none Armenian friends 15 17.6% 4 2.8% 19 8.4% uuirerilly Fewer than half 37 17 54 43.5% 12.1% 23.9% About half 15 38 53 17.6% 27.0% 23.5% More than half 12 60 72 14.1% 42.6% 31.9% A ll or almost all 6 22 28 7.1% 15.6% 12.4% Total 85 141 226 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% *p<.001 Impact on Religious Affiliation. In contrast to ethnic identification and ethnic friendship structures, change in religious affiliation does appear to be strongly associated with intermarriage (see Tables 7.19 and 7.20). On an aggregate level, the percentage of those affiliated with an Armenian Protestant church during childhood compared to today only slightly decreases (from 25.0% to 22.9%), while the percentage affiliated with an Armenian Orthodox church during childhood compared to today decreases greatly (from 61.9% to 44.6%). The percentage affiliated with another Christian denomination during childhood compared to today increases from 10.7% to 25.3%. Interestingly, on an individual level, although 54 of the 86 intermarried respondents (62.8%) reported no change in religious affiliation, of those reporting change, 82.8% reported a “negative” move. Clearly, among those who have Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. intermarried, the Armenian Orthodox Church is experiencing the largest decrease in membership. The causes of this decrease will be explored in a forthcoming section. TABLE 7.19 Frequency (select if Intermarried), Childhood Religious Affiliation Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent None 2 2.3 2.4 2.4 Other Christian 9 10.5 10.7 13.1 Armenian Protestant Christian 21 24.4 25.0 38.1 Armenian Orthodox Christian 52 60.5 61.9 100.0 Total 84 100.0 TABLE 7.20 Frequency (select if Intermarried), Current Religious Affiliation Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent None 6 7.0 7.2 7.2 Other Christian 21 24.4 25.3 32.5 Armenian Protestant Christian 19 22.1 22.9 55.4 Armenian Orthodox Christian 37 43.0 44.6 100.0 Total 83 100.0 Impact on Ethnic Community Involvement. Although a significant proportion of Armenian-Americans who have intermarried are involved in Armenian community activities, those who have married Armenians seem to be, in general, more involved. I examined the percentages attending or participating in some type of Genocide commemoration on April 24 the prior year. Only 10.5% of the intermarried had done so, compared to 24.1% of the intramarried (see Table 7.21). Similarly, while 31.6% of the intermarried respondents attend activities/meetings of Armenian Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. organizations once a month or more frequently, 50% of the intramarried do so Table 7.22). TABLE 7.21 Crosstab, Ethnicity of Spouse by Participation in Genocide Commemoration* Ethnicitv of Spouse Total Not of Armenian descent Entirely of Armenian descent Attendance/participation in No Genocide Commemoration 77 89.5% 110 75.9% 187 81.0% events in the last yeai yes ' 9 10.5% 35 24.1% 44 19.0% Total 86 100.0% 145 100.0% 231 100.0% *p<.02 TABLE 7.22 Crosstab, Ethnicity of Spouse by Attendance at Armenian Organization Activities/Meetings* Ethnicitv of Spouse Not of Armenian descent Entirely of Armenian descent Total Attendance at Never activities/meetings of 35 44.3% 29 20.1% 64 28.7% Armenian organizations - pa7ely" " 19 43 62 24.1% 29.9% 27.8% Once a month 17 38 55 21.5% 26.4% 24.7% 2-3 times a month 5 30 35 6.3% 20.8% 15.7% Weekly 3 4 7 3.8% 2.8% 3.1% Total 79 144 223 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% *p=.001 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Acceptance o f Intermarriage. The fact is that intermarriage occurs. Whether or not everyone accepts it is a question for investigation. The data collected allow for two types of acceptance of intermarriage to be examined— acceptance by the community and acceptance by the Armenian family/inlaws. Acceptance is largely influenced by one's attitudes, and the data on attitudes towards intermarriage will also be shared here. Reception of Intermarried Couples. Perhaps intermarried respondents’ religious affiliation and participation in Armenian community events is influenced by how welcome or unwelcome the respondents feel. I asked respondents whether they ever felt unwelcome at Armenian church or community functions (see Table 7.23). Although 6.9% of intramarried respondents even report feeling unwelcome at these functions, the rate is almost three times as high for intermarried respondents (18.8%). TA BLE 7.23 Crosstab, Feel Welcome by Ethnicity of Spouse* Ethnicitv of Spouse Total Not of Armenian descent Entirely of Armenian descent Feel unwelcome at No Armenian church or 69 81.2% 135 93.1% 204 88.7% community events - Yes 16 18.8% 10 6.9% 26 11.3% Total 85 100.0% 145 100.0% 230 100.0% *p<.01 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Another underlying factor regarding the lack of participation in Armenian church and community events may be the reception of the non-Armenian spouse by his or her Armenian in-laws (see Table 7.24). While 38.4% of the intermarried respondents report a less than warm initial reception of their spouses, only 16.3% of the intramarried respondents gave this response. It should be noted that only 15.7% of those intramarried respondents reporting a less than warm initial reception of their spouses also reported that the reception did not change or changed for the worse over time. The overwhelming majority (84.4%) reported that the situation improved for the better with the passage of time. TABLE 7.24 Crosstab, Parent/Family Initial Reception of Spouse by Ethnicity of Spouse Ethnicitv of Spouse Total Not of Armenian descent Entirely of Armenian descent Reception of spouse Very well 53 120 173 by Armenian in-laws 61.6% 83.3% 75.2% Somewhat well 23 13 36 26.7% 9.0% 15.7% Not too well 7 10 17 8.1% 6.9% 7.4% Not at all well 3 1 4 3.5% .7% 1.7% Total 86 144 230 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% *p=.ooi Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Attitudes towards Intermarriage. How parents, families, and the Armenian community in general receive non-Armenian spouses is largely shaped by previously held attitudes about intermarriage. Because many people correlate biological heritage with ethnicity and consider “having Armenian parents” as the most important factor defining Armenian identity (as noted earlier in this chapter. 73.9% of the entire sample rank it first or second in the list of six items), intermarriage is viewed as a threat to the Armenian community. However, as I have found in this study, intermarriage does not seem to have a profound impact on structural or identificational assimilation. And, the large effect that it seems to have on affiliation with an Armenian church (particularly Armenian Orthodox) and involvement in the Armenian community may be, in fact, a result of a less-than-warm welcoming into the community—a self-fulfilling prophecy. Only 20.5% of the entire sample mildly disagree (12.2%) or strongly disagree (8.3%) that “it is better to marry someone of your own ethnic background.” Sixty- four percent feel it is “somewhat important” (32.5%), “very important” (20.6%), or “extremely important” (10.7%) that their children marry someone of the same ethnic background. This latter feeling is even stronger for wanting their children to marry someone of the same religion (68.9%) and race (70.1%). Summarizing the Exploration o f Marital Assimilation. Intermarriage in a multi-ethnic society is inevitable, and it is increasing among Armenian-Americans in Central California (69.7% of respondents who married between 1990 and 1998 190 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. intermarried). The question is how the ethnic group will respond. Will the ethnic group incorporate new “non-blood” members into their fold, thereby adding to the group, or not fully accept the new member and risk “losing” the “blood” member? From the analyses presented in this chapter, it seems the Armenian-American community, in general, and families, in particular, in Central California tend to respond with the latter option. Nearly three times as many intermarried respondents reported feeling unwelcome at Armenian church or community functions compared to intramarried respondents, and more than twice as many intermarried respondents reported a less than warm reception (at least initially) of the non-Armenian spouse by his or her Armenian in-laws. Perhaps with the realization that intermarriage is less of a threat than originally perceived, this response may change. Although I did observe a positive correlation between marital assimilation and the other three types of assimilation, only two of the three relationships—cultural and structural assimilation—were significant, and both of those were only moderate positive correlations. As Gordon predicted, structural assimilation in adolescence and young adulthood exhibited the strongest correlation with likelihood of intermarriage. This, too, addresses the question I posed in the introduction: intermarriage is not necessarily removing Armenian-Americans from their ethnic community, but more often occurring among Armenian-Americans who are already removed or not involved with the ethnic community. Furthermore, the correlations between marital assimilation and the change in the proportion of Armenian friends, identification with the Armenian ethnic group, and religious affiliation were weak to moderate. 191 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Following marriage, very little impact on any of these measures, except religious affiliation, was observed, and the change in religious affiliation could be a function of how intermarried couples are welcomed or not welcomed at church gatherings. Once again, it seems that the straight-line assumptions are not completely accurate. Assimilation and ethnicity (or ethnic identity retention) are two, somewhat independent, processes, not one and the same. They are not necessarily contradictory or inconsistent with one another (Isajiw 1996). Different types of assimilation can occur on some levels while ethnicity and/or ethnic identity is maintained on another level. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER EIGHT CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Overview In the preceding chapters, I have presented an analysis of the responses of 294 individuals of Armenian descent living in the four-county San Joaquin Valley who completed a mail questionnaire as participants in “The Study of Armenian-Americans in Central California.” The sample was randomly drawn from a master list of nearly 6,000 residences in the four-county area that contained at least one person of Armenian descent (personally generated from public directories and other sources) and, therefore, is believed to be representative of Armenian-Americans in the Central San Joaquin Valley and, to a lesser degree, of Armenian-Americans in communities of similar ethnic group size, institutional viability, and generational status. The aims of this study were to: (1) provide a current demographic snapshot of one of the oldest Armenian communities in America; (2) explore the processes of assimilation and ethnic identity retention across generations as a test of straight-line theory; (3) examine the forms of ethnic identity and ethnicity that persist through the third and fourth generation; and (4) investigate the phenomenon of intermarriage and its implications. All of this combines to address the issue of whether or not a 193 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. paradigm shift from looking at ethnicity as a matter of assimilation versus ethnicity to one of assimilation and ethnicity is required within the discipline, hence the title of this dissertation. Drawing from Milton Gordon’s (1964) conceptual framework and the theoretical frameworks of J. Milton Yinger’s (1981, 1994) assimilation and dissimilation and Wsevolod Isajiw’s (1990, 1991) ethnic identity retention, I have examined four subprocesses of assimilation—cultural, structural, marital, and identificational— in an effort to examine the patterns of change (i.e., assimilation) and persistence (i.e., ethnicity) and test the “straight-line theory.” The primary independent variables were generation, religious affiliation, percent Armenian ancestry, and years of education completed. Demographic Snapshot. The sample comprises relatively equal proportions of males and females (48% and 52%, respectively) and exhibits a bell curve distribution for age (range 20-91; median=56; mean=55.7) and generational status (when re-coded into four categories). Only 13% of the sample is foreign bom. This is likely due to the following three reasons: the English language bias of the survey instrument, the fact that Central California is an “older” Armenian ethnic community (i.e., the majority of its population is descended from the early waves of immigration to the United States), and the instruction for the latest-generation person in the household to complete the survey. The sample is overwhelmingly Christian (6.6% listed “None” for religious affiliation) with the majority (60.0%) affiliated with the Armenian 194 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Orthodox Church. A majority of the sample is married (66.6%) with stable families (5.8% separated or divorced). The socioeconomic characteristics demonstrate the upward social mobility of this group. Thirty-two percent have a Bachelor’s degree and 22.8% have some type of post-baccalaureate degree; only 2.1% have less than a high school diploma. With regard to annual family income, the sample exhibits an unusual distribution. Although a normal distribution was found for incomes between “Less than $10,000” and “90,000-99,000” with the peak being in the “$40,000- $49,000” and “$50,000-$59,999” categories, the modal response category was “$100,000 or more” (25.7%). Assimilation and Ethnicity. The first conclusion is that assimilation and ethnicity can co-exist. I found examples of both linear assimilation and retention of ethnicity and combinations of the two. The findings were somewhat different depending on the component of ethnicity or the process of assimilation examined. From the descriptive findings presented in Chapter Five, I observed that although cultural assimilation appears linearly related to generation, structural assimilation is not. With each passing generation, language suffers the most. The connections to Armenian friends, relatives, and professionals persist across generations, as does the strong sense of family. Even though culture appears linearly related to generation, there were some “bumps” in that relationship. For example, the consumption of Armenian food is retained by the fourth generation, but less as a skill than a symbol— something used by them but prepared by someone else (i.e., the first 195 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. and second generations eat ethnic foods at home while the later generations frequent Armenian restaurants). Another example of the bumpy line for cultural assimilation is the persistence of religious participation with an ethnic church. Although the percentage of those affiliated with an Armenian church declines 20.9% from the first to the fourth generation, a majority of the later generation (67.3%) are still affiliated with one. Furthermore, the percentage decrease of those attending worship services at an Armenian church two to three times a month is only 9.7%, and, in fact, a greater percentage of fourth generation respondents (45.5%) than second generation (38.5%) attend frequently. Finally, despite the decreases in the percentage of first and fourth generations receiving Armenian papers/magazines at home (24.9%) and reading Armenian literature (23.9%), the drop between the second and fourth generations is relatively small (2.4% and 8.9%, respectively). The regression and crosstab analyses of all four types of assimilation presented in Chapter Six revealed varying degrees of these forms of assimilation with this sample population. These findings also challenge the straight-line theory of assimilation. First, years of education and percent Armenian were not found to be correlated with any of the four types of assimilation. These findings contradict existing research. In the review of the literature, I noted that the shedding of the ethnic culture and identity often accompanies educational mobility. Why this has not happened with the members of this sample could be explained as being the opposite of the “anti-intellectuallism effect” found in some other ethnic, racial, or religious 196 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. groups (Covello 1967; Greeley 1962; McWhorter 2000; Rigney and Hoffman 1993). Instead of minimizing the importance o f education or looking at educational advancement as “selling out,” Armenians entered this country with a strong emphasis on education. Indeed, parents have sacrificed greatly for their children’s education. Education is viewed as an important ingredient to success in the United States and Armenians have, by and large, achieved upward social mobility due largely to their pursuit o f advanced education. That percent Armenian is also not correlated with any of the assimilation variables is also particularly fascinating. Bloodline and ancestry are often assumed to be essential characteristics defining ethnicity. However, maintenance o f the Armenian culture, integration with Armenian networks, marriage to a person o f Armenian descent, and identifying as Armenian and as a member of the ethnic group seem to not be affected by different amounts o f Armenian ancestry (at least for those with 50% Armenian ancestry or more). This finding provides support for the notion o f assimilation and ethnicity. It is not a zero sum equation. One can exhibit degrees o f assimilation in some areas and degrees of ethnic retention in others. The other two independent variables, generation and religious affiliation, exhibited interesting and interactive effects. The primary hypothesis that generation is positively correlated with all four types o f assimilation was generally not supported, and this presents the biggest challenge to straight-line theory. Religious affiliation, on the other hand, proved to have strong positive correlations with all four dependent variables. Generation was found to be significant in the regression equations for cultural and marital assimilation. However, when controlling for 197 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. religious affiliation, the relationship with both dependent variables was altered. Further analysis confirmed the existence o f an interaction effect between generation and religious affiliation above and beyond the independent effect o f each variable in the regression equation. While the effect o f generation remained strong for Armenian Protestants, it was notably weaker for Armenian Orthodox; and, for those respondents not affiliated with an Armenian church (either Protestant or Orthodox), generation no longer had any effect (a super-majority o f respondents score high in cultural and marital assimilation). This suggests that from the beginning o f one’s entrance to American society, participation in Armenian faith communities assists with individuals’ retention of Armenian culture and moderates marital assimilation. Generation was only weakly associated with identificational assimilation, and the relationship was not linear. Although identificational assimilation slightly increases from the first to the second generation, it remains rather persistent into the second, third, and even fourth generation. The Armenian churches are also a key factor in preventing identificational assimilation. The only variable that was correlated with structural assimilation was religious affiliation. The Armenian churches seem to be a building block for social, professional, and personal relationships with others o f Armenian descent. Importance of Religious Affiliation. Isajiw (1990), in his review o f the literature o f assimilation and ethnic identity retention, notes that although most studies find a loss in ethnic practices with each passing generation, changes in religious practices are more complex. Abramson (197S) distinguished at least three 198 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. different patterns o f loss and retention o f religious identity between different ethnic groups with successive generations. While some groups exhibit a straight-line pattern o f decreasing religious identity, others experience a return o f the third generation after a drop between the first and the second generations. Still others demonstrate an increase in religious identity from first to second and then decline. Herberg (1955) found that religious ties to Judaism persevered through the third generation. For Jews and Western Europeans, increased church attendance has been positively correlated with increasing assimilation from generation to generation, while Southern Europeans show a decrease (Lazarewitz and Rowitz 1964; Nelsen and Allen 1974). In the current study, religious affiliation superceded generation, and any other of the three independent variables, as the explanatory variable in predicting the extent o f all four types o f assimilation and o f retention o f ethnicity. The Armenian- Americans in this sample exhibit a fair degree of persistence o f religious identity from first to the fourth generation, and although frequent church attendance drops from the first to the second, it increases among fourth generation respondents. In future research on the data collected from this study, I would like to examine the open-ended responses to the question: “What is the main reason you attend the church you do?” Not only would it be interesting to determine whether generational differences exist, but it would be important to understand the type o f attachment that these later-generation respondents have to the Armenian faith communities. Is it spiritual, social, habitual, cultural, or some other reason or combination o f reasons? 199 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ethnic Identity and Persistence o f Ethnicity in Later Generations. Aside from the persistence o f ethnic identity across generations as discussed above, further investigation o f ethnic identity in Chapter Seven reveals clear differences among the three different types measured: social identity (i.e., how respondents report identity to others), personal identity (i.e., how they think of their identity to themselves), and collective identity (i.e., whether respondents consider themselves as members of the ethnic group). The investigation o f ethnic identity also demonstrates that identity is a fluid and social construct. Identification as a member o f the ethnic group was found to change over time for about half o f the sample, and the most important factors believed to define Armenian identity are different for different generations. Each generation tends to rank the six defining factors o f Armenian identity in different ways, according to its own generational “stake,” position o f dominance, or lived experience. For example, first generation respondents are more likely to rank speaking Armenian highly because o f their lived experience, proficiency, and concern for language preservation. Third and fourth generation respondents rank identifying with Armenian people first or second much more often than the first or second generations perhaps because they are more likely to have multiple ancestries due to intermarriage and may often have to assert their “Armenianness” to others. Further exploration o f the characteristics of later-generation respondents who contradicted the predictions of straight-line theory revealed some interesting patterns. Clearly, different blends o f characteristics differentiated individuals in the high and 200 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. low categories for each type o f assimilation; however, three characteristics played a significant role in distinguishing between the high and low groups for all three types o f assimilation {i.e., cultural, structural, and identificational). One discriminating characteristic common to all three types of assimilation is respondents’ perception of their parents’ feelings about being Armenian. In addition to parents’ explicit encouraging o f their children to identify with and retain their Armenian heritage, there may be subtle, often unspoken, ways o f conveying one’s feelings about and identification with one’s ethnic background. Knowingly and unknowingly, parents directly impact the transmission of ethnicity and ethnic identity to the next generation. The characteristic most strongly associated with all three types of assimilation is the proportion o f one’s friends that are Armenian. Another influential trait was affiliation with an Armenian church. These findings suggest that “social channeling” moderates all three forms of assimilation, thus supporting Gordon’s (1964:81) emphasis on structural assimilation as the “keystone o f the arch of assimilation.” If one’s ethnic networks are developed, the extent o f assimilation is lessened, and ethnic culture and ethnic identity persist into later generations. However, as noted above, if structural assimilation is high, ethnic culture and ethnic identity diminish significantly. Intermarriage. Intermarriage in a multi-ethnic society is inevitable, and it is increasing among Armenian-Americans in Central California (69.7% of respondents who married between 1990 and 1998 intermarried). The question is how the ethnic 201 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. group will respond. From my analyses o f the data, it seems the Armenian-American community, in general, and families, in particular, in Central California have not been very accepting. Nearly three times as many intermarried as intramarried respondents report having felt unwelcome at Armenian church or community functions, and more than twice as many intermarried respondents report a less than warm reception (at least initially) o f the non-Armenian spouse by his or her Armenian in-laws. I hypothesize that the perspective of intermarriage as a threat to the survival and continuity o f the ethnic community largely shapes this response. Perhaps with new awareness, informed by the results o f this study that reveal intermarriage to be o f minimal threat, this response may change. Although I did observe a positive correlation between marital assimilation and the other three types o f assimilation, only two o f the three relationships—cultural and structural assimilation—were significant, and both of those were only moderate positive correlations. As Gordon predicted, structural assimilation in adolescence and young adulthood exhibited the strongest correlation with likelihood of intermarriage. This, too, addresses the question I posed in the introduction: intermarriage is not necessarily removing Armenian-Americans from their ethnic community, but more often occurring among Armenian-Americans who are already removed or not involved with the ethnic community. Furthermore, the correlations between marital assimilation and the change in the proportion of Armenian friends, identification with the Armenian ethnic group, and religious affiliation were weak to moderate. Following marriage, very little impact on any o f these measures, except religious 202 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. affiliation, was observed, and the change in religious affiliation could be a function of how intermarried couples are welcomed or not welcomed at church gatherings (note the self-fulfilling prophecy). Here again, the assumptions o f straight-line theory are challenged. Assimilation and ethnicity/ethnic-identity retention are two, somewhat independent, processes, not one and the same. They are not necessarily contradictory or inconsistent with one another (Isajiw 1996). Different types o f assimilation can occur on some levels while ethnicity and/or ethnic identity is maintained on another level. Implications Above all, these findings suggest the need to re-conceptualize the perspective regarding assimilation and ethnicity. Assimilation should not be viewed as unilinear or as a zero-sum phenomenon, but rather as multi-dimensional and multi-directional. The conceptualization o f assimilation as an additive process (Yinger 1981, 1994), or what Hurh and Kim (1983) call “adhesive adaptation,” is helpful for this work. As the findings have demonstrated, mixed profiles can and do exist in later-generation ethnics. The forms that these profiles take for different generations o f different groups should be further investigated in future research. Some groups may rely on or emphasize some forms more than others. The primary forms o f ethnicity and ethnic identity retention among a significant proportion o f the later generation Armenian- Americans in this sample revolve around ethnic self-identification, consumption o f 203 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ethnic food (albeit as a symbol, not a skill), religious identity, and ethnic friendship structures and professional networks. Miller (1992) contends that social ecological theories o f ethnicity are best equipped to explain the different experiences o f ethnic groups because o f their attention to the varying social contexts o f economics, population ratios, societal images, in-group socialization, historical legacies, rules governing intergroup relations, etc. He faults Eriksonian-based models of ethnic identity development and social psychological theories because o f their ahistorical and acontextual nature and because of their assumption that the developmental process is linear and universal. Similarly, Bronfenbrenner (1977) emphasizes the need for social theory and research to describe the developmental process as it occurs within contexts that are embedded within larger social structures. Likewise, Katz and Kahn (1978) describe how events, roles, norms, values, and thus individual and group behavior are shaped by social systems. Given this acknowledgement o f the powerful role of social structural forces, “ethnic ... identity development must be understood through the larger ecology” (Miller 1992:35). Applying this perspective to the current research and contextualizing the Central California Armenian-American case somewhat will serve as a model for the application to other groups. With a long history o f oppression, genocide, and survival, the heritage of the Armenian people may have a near sacred reverence as something vital to pass on from one generation to the next— something that would heighten ethnic identification (this is something else that will be examined in future 204 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. analysis of the data collected for this study). Furthermore, Armenians in Central California experienced a great deal of prejudice and discrimination, including restrictive covenants in housing. In fact, “Racial prejudice and discrimination in Fresno County were quite strong and longer-lasting than in any other community in the United States” (Minasian 1982:9) due to the rapid and unrelenting pace of Armenian immigration combined with their clustering together in the city’s southwestern area, their relative economic success, and their differences in skin color, dress, and language (U.S. Immigration Commission 1907-1910). External threat breeds internal solidarity. When an ethnic group experiences discrimination and prejudice from the dominant group, ethnic culture, friendship patterns, and subjective identification, will more likely persist or remain intact as a source of pride and trustful interaction with others in the group. Thus, for some ethnic groups, the weighting might lean more toward assimilation than assimilation and ethnicity, but the current case represents a quintessential example of assimilation and ethnicity. There is also a strong need to examine the patterns of change and persistence for different ethnic groups that are in the fourth, Fifth, sixth, and seventh generation. Obviously, the ethnicity and/or ethnic identity retained/generated by the later generations will not be of the same type or form of identity as that possessed by the First or second generation, but it still demands investigation as to its form and meaning. For the Armenian-Americans of Central California, as with other ethnic groups that immigrated to the United States at or around the turn of the twentieth century, this proposed study could not happen for another ten to twenty years as the 205 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. community is just now producing fourth generation adults and fifth generation children. It would be desirable for me to revisit the current sample in several years and expand the sample to include additional later generations. Aside from examining the forms of ethnicity/ethnic identity in later generations, this type of research would allow for longitudinal research on ethnic identity. My findings of the fluidity and fluctuation of ethnic identity suggest that longitudinal research on this topic is necessary. It cannot be assumed that one’s ethnic identity is forever and always the same. Just as with any other socially constructed phenomenon, it is in a state of constant change, relative to the social and psychological contexts. For example, research on ethnic identity should take age and other characteristics into consideration. In pursuing these research questions, qualitative as well as quantitative data are necessary. Qualitative data, gathered from personal interviews and open-ended questions, can flush out the nuances of the different forms of ethnic identity retention and explain how assimilation and ethnicity can co-exist, especially in populations so far removed from the immigrant population. Simirenko’s (1964) interviews of first and second generations remind us to be careful of over-generalizing about each generation’s experience with ethnic identity retention and assimilation. The human experience is rarely, if ever, absolute, and interviews can tease out the existence of different “ideal types” of adaptation that may exist within each generation. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. I believe the current research has helped illuminate the experiences of an under-studied population while simultaneously challenging and expanding the academic discourse regarding assimilation and ethnicity. Hopefully, these analyses help further the understanding of the complex nature of the relationship of these processes by revealing the mixed profiles of assimilation and ethnicity and the persistence of ethnic identity that exist within this sample. Although my work is specific to Armenian-Americans in Central California, it may provide clues to the patterns of change and persistence for other ethnic groups— perhaps to the formulation of a new paradigm— and insight into future research on these topics. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. REFERENCES Abramson, Harold J. 1975. ‘The Religioethnic Factor and The American Experience: Another Look at the Three-Generations Hypothesis.” Ethnicitv 2:163-177. . 1980. “Assimilation and Pluralism.” Pp. 150-160 in Harvard Encyclopedia o f American Ethnic Groups, edited by S. Themstrom, A. Orlov, and O. Handlin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Aharonian, Aharon G. 1983. Intermarriage and the Armenian Community: A Socio- Religious Study o f Intermarriage and the Armenian Apostolic Church. Shrewbury, MA: By the author, P.O. Box 67. Alba, Richard D. 1985a. Italian Americans: Into the Twilight o f Ethnicity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. . 1985b. ‘The Twilight of Ethnicity among Americans of European Ancestry: The Case of Italians.” Pp. 134-158 in Ethnicity and Race in the U.S.A.— Toward the Twenty First Century, edited by R. D. Alba. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1990. Ethnic Identity: The Transformation o f White America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Alba, Richard D. and Mitchell B. Chamlin. 1983. “A Preliminary Examination of Ethnic Identification among Whites.” American Sociological Review 48 (2):240-247. Alba, Richard D. and Victor Nee. 1997. “Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of Immigration.” International Migration Review 31(4):826-874. Avakian, Arra. 1998. Armenia: A Journey through History. Fresno, CA: Electric Press. 208 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Babbie, Earl R. 1979. The Practice o f Social Research. 2d ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Bakalian, Anny P. 1989. “From Being to Feeling Armenian: Assimilation and Identity Among American-Armenians in Metropolitan New York and New Jersey.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, Columbia University, New York, NY. 1993. Armenian-Americans: From Being to Feeling Armenian. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Bamburger, Joan. 1986-87. “Family and Kinship in an Armenian-American Community.” Journal o f Armenian Studies 3(I-2):77-86. Bardis, Panos. 1959. “A Familism Scale.” Journal o f Marriage and Family Living 2 l(November):340-341. Barth, Fredrik. 1969. “Introduction.” Pp. 9-38 in Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization o f Culture Difference, edited by F. Barth. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. Bengtson. Vem L. and Joseph A. Kuypers. 1971. “Generational Difference and The ‘Developmental Stake.’” Aging and Human Development 2:249-260. Berger, Peter and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction o f Reality. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. Blau, Peter M., Terry C. Blum, and Joseph E. Schwartz. 1982. “Heterogeneity and Intermarriage.” American Sociological Review 47(l):45-62. Blom, Jan-Petter. 1969. “Ethnic and Cultural Differentiation.” Pp. 74-85 in Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization o f Culture Difference, edited by F. Barth. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. 209 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Blu, Karen I. 1980. The Lumbee Problem: The Making o f an American Indian People. New York: Cambirdge University Press. Bonacich, Edna. 1980. “Class Approaches to Ethnicity and Race.” Insurgent Sociologist 10(2):9-23. Bossard, James. 1939. “Nationality and Nativity as Factors in Marriage.” American Sociological Review 4:792-798. Bourne, Randolph S. 1916. ‘Trans-National America.” The Altlantic Monthly, July, p. 95. Boumoutian, George A. 1993. A History o f the Armenian People: Volume I—Pre- History to 1500 A.D. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers. 1994. A History o f the Armenian People: Volume II— 1500 A.D. to the Present. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers. Bozorgmehr, Mehdi, Claudia Der-Martirosian, and Georges Sabagh. 1996. “Middle Easterners: A New Kind of immigrant.” Chapter 12 (pp. 345-378) in Ethnic Los Angeles, edited by R. Waldinger and M. Bozorgmehr. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Breton, Raymond. 1964. “Institutional Completeness of Ethnic Communities and the Personal Relations of Immigrants.” American Journal o f Sociology 70(2): 193-205. Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1977. ‘Toward an Experiemental Ecology of Human Development.” American Psychologist 32:513-531. Bulbulian, Berge. 2000. The Fresno Armenians: History o f a Diaspora Community. Fresno, CA: The Press at California State University, Fresno. 210 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Burgess, M. Elaine. 1978. ‘T he Resurgence of Ethnicity: Myth or Reality?” Ethnic and Racial Studies l(3):265-285. Burkey, Richard M. 1978. Ethnic and Racial Groups: The Dynamics o f Dominance. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings. Carpenter, Niles. 1927. Immigrants and Their Children 1920: A Study Based on Census Statistics Relative to the Foreign Bom and the Native White o f Foreign or Mixed Parentage. Washington, D.C.: Census Monograph VII. Cheek, Jonathan M. 1989. “Identity Orientations and Self-Interpretation.” Pp. 275- 285 in Personality Psychology: Recent Trends and Emerging Directions, edited by D.M. Buss and N. Cantor. New York: Springer-Verlag. Cheek. Jonathan M„ M.K. Underwood, and B.L. Cutler. 1985. ‘The Aspects of Identity Questionnaire (III).” Wellesley College. Unpublished manuscript. Chichekian, Garo. 1987. “Linguistic Assimilation and Cultural Completeness of Armenian Communities in Canada.” Armenian Review 40(3): 1-15. Cole, Stewart G. and Mildred Wiese Cole. 1954. Minorities and the American Promise. New York: Harper and Brothers. Common Ground. Spring 1944 and Autumn 1945. Constantinou, Stavros T. and Milton E. Harvey. 1985. “Dimensional Structure and Intergenerational Differences in Ethnicity: The Greek Americans.” Sociology and Social Research 69(2):234-254. Conzen, Kathleen Neils, David A. Gerber, Eva Morawska, George E. Pozzetta, and Rudolph J. Vecolie. 1992. ‘The Invention of Ethnicity: A Perspective from the U.S.A.” Journal o f American Ethnic History 12(l):3-41. 211 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Covello, Leonard. 1967. The Social Background o f the Italo-American School Child. Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill. Crispino, James A. 1980. The Assimilation o f Ethnic Groups: The Italian Case. Staten Island. NY: Center for Migration Studies. Dadrian, Vahakn N. 1997. The History o f the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus. Rev. 3d ed. Providence, RI: Berghahn Books. Dalmage, Heather M. 2000. Tripping on the Color Line: Black-White Multiracial Families in a Racially Divided World. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Davidian, Nectar. 1965. The Seropians: First Armenian Settlers in Fresno County, California. Berkeley, CA. Der-Karabetian, Aghop and Armine Proudian Der-Karabetian. 1981. “A Preliminary Summary of a Survey of California Armenians: 1981.” Paper presented at the Proceedings of Conference on Armenians in the Eighties: Prospects and Challenges, September 11-13, University of California, Berkeley. Der-Karabetian, Aghop and Emma Oshagan. 1977. “Ethnic Orientation of Armenians in Lebanon.” Armenian Review 30(Summer): 164-175. Der-Martirosian, Claudia, Georges Sabagh, and Mehdi Bozorgmehr. 1993. “Subethnicity: Armenians in Los Angeles.” Pp. 243-258 in Immigration and Entrepeneurship: Culture, Capital, and Ethnic Networks, edited by I. Light and P. Bhachu. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. De Vos, George A. and Lola Romanucci-Ross, eds. 1975. Ethnic Identity: Cultural Continuities and Change. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Dillman, Don A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys— The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Drachsler, Julius. 1920. Democracy and Assimilation: The Blending o f American Heritages in America. New York: Macmillan Company. Erikson, Erik H. 1950. Childhood and Society. New York: Simon. . 1968. Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton. Friedman, Nathalie. 1989. ‘T he Graduates of Ramaz: Fifty Years of Jewish Day School Education.” In Fifty Years o f Orthodox Judaism in America, 1937- 1987—Essays in Honor o f the Jubilee o f Ramaz School, edited by J.S. Gurock. New York: Ktav Publishing. Gans. Herbert J. 1956. “American Jewry: Present and Future.” Commentary 21(May):422-430. 1979. “Symbolic Ethnicity: The Future of Ethnic Groups in America.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 2(January): 1-20. 1988. Middle American Individualism: The Future o f Liberal Democracy. New York: Free Press. 1992. “Comment: Ethnic Invention and Acculturation, A Bumpy-Line Approach.” Journal o f American Ethnic History 12(l):42-52. . 1994. “Symbolic Ethnicity and Symbolic Religiosity: Towards a Comparison of Ethnic and Religious Acculturation.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 17(4):577- 592. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1997. ‘Toward a Reconciliation of ‘Assimilation’ and ‘Pluralism’: The Interplay of Acculturation and Ethnic Retention.” International Migration Review 31(4):875-892. Garza, Raymond T. and Lawrence G. Herringer. 1987. ‘‘Social Identity: A Multidimensional Approach.” Journal o f Social Psychology 127(.3):299-308. Geertz, Cifford. 1963. ‘The Integrative Revolution: Primordial Sentiments and Civil Politics in the New States.” Pp. 105-157 in Old Societies and New States, edited by C. Geertz. New York: Free Press. Giarrusso, Roseann, Matthew Jendian, Du Feng, Bi-ling Shieh, and Vem L. Bengtson. 1995. “Commentary: A Response to Rossi.” Pp. 289-296 in Adult Inter gene rational Relations: Effects o f Societal Change, edited by V.L. Bengtson, K.W. Schaie, and L.M. Burton. New York: Spring Publishing Company, Inc. Giarrusso, Roseann, Michael Stallings, and Vem L. Bengtson. 1995. ‘The Intemgenerational Stake’ Hypothesis Revisited: Parent-Child Differences in Perceptions of Relationships 20 Years Later.” Chapter 6 (pp. 227-263) in Adult Intergenerational Relations: Effects o f Societal Change, edited by V.L. Bengtson, K.W. Schaie, and L.M. Burton. New York: Spring Publishing Company. Inc. Glazer, Nathan and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. 1970. Beyond the Melting Pot— The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, and Irish o f New York City. 2d ed. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Glazer, Nathan and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, eds. 1975. Ethnicity: Theory and Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gordon, Milton M. 1954. "Social Structure and Goals in Group Relations." Pp. 141- 157 in Freedom and Control in Modem Society, edited by M. Berger, T. Abel, and C. H. Page. New York: D. Van Nostrand Co. 214 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1961. "Assimilation in America: Theory and Reality.” Journal o f the American Academy o f Arts and Sciences 90(2):263-285. 1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role o f Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press. 1978. Human Nature, Class, and Ethnicity. New York: Oxford University Press. Goyder, John. 1987. The Silent Minority—Nonrespondents on Sample Surveys. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Greeley, Andrew M. 1962. "Anti-Intellectualism in Catholic Colleges.” American Catholic Sociological Review 23(4):350-368. . 1971. Why Can 7 They be Like Us? New York: Dutton. . 1974. Ethnicity in the United States. New York: John Wiley. Greer, Rebecca F., ed. 1995. Armenian Cemeteries: Ararat and Masis Ararat Cemeteries. Fresno, CA: Fresno Genealogical Society. Handlin, Oscar, ed. 1959. Immigration—A Factor in American History. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hansen, Marcus Lee. 1938. The Problems o f the Third Generation Immigrant. Rock Island, IL: Augustana Historical Society. . 1952. “ T he Third Generation in America.” Commentary 14(5):492-500. Hechter, Michael, Debra Friedman, and M. Appelbaum. 1982. "A Theory of Ethnic Collective Action.” International Migration Review 16(2):412-434. 215 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Helsel, Deborah Gail. 1993. ‘“ Here There is Much More and Much Less’: Hmong- American Families, Culture and Childbearing in the ‘Land of the Giants.’” Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Henry. Sheila E. 1978. Cultural Persistence and Socio-Economic Mobility: A Comparative Study o f Assimilation among Armenians and Japanese in Los Angeles. San Francisco, CA: R & E Research Associates, Inc. Herberg, Will. 1955. Protestant-Catholic-Jew. New York: Doubleday and Co. Hirschman, Charles. 1983. “ America's Melting Pot Reconsidered.” Annual Review o f Sociology 9:397-423. Hollingshead, August B. 1950. “Cultural Factors in the Selection of Marriage Mates.” American Sociological Review 15:619-627. Hovannisian, Richard. 1967. Armenia on the Road to Independence, 1918. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Hurd, Burton W. 1929. Origin, Birthplace, Nationality, and Language o f the Canadian People. 1921 Census Monograph, Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Ottawa: King's Printer. Hurh, Won Moo and Kwang Chung Kim. 1983. Korean Immigrants in America: A Structural Analysis o f Ethnic Confinement and Adhesive Adaptation. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Isaacs, Harold Robert. 1975. Idols o f the Tribe. New York: Harper and Row. Isajiw, Wsevolod W. 1974. “Definitions of Ethnicity.” Ethnicity 1(1): 111-124. 216 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1990. “Ethnic-Identity Retention.” Chapter 2 (pp. 34-91) in Ethnic Identity and Equality: Varieties o f Experience in a Canadian City, edited by R. Breton, W. Isajiw, W. Kalbach, and J. Reitz. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. . 1994. “Definitions of Ethnicity: New Approaches.” Ethnic Forum 14(1):9-16. . 1996. “Ethnicity: Source of Strength? Source of Conflict?” (Book review). International Migration Review 30(l):335-337. Isajiw. Wsevolod W. and Momo Podolsky. 1991. ‘The Deconstruction and Reconstruction of Ethnicity in Culturally Diverse Societies” (Abstract). Department of Sociology, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Unpublished American Sociological Association Paper. Jaret, Charles. 1995. Contemporary Racial and Ethnic Relations. New York: HarpeiCollins College Publishers. Jendian, Allan Y. 1985. “Armenian Churches, Institutions and Organizations of the San Joaquin Valley.” Pp. 6-10 in Fresno Centennial 1985. Fresno, CA: Armenian Assembly of America and Liberty Printing. Jendian, Matthew A. 1992. “A Study of Intermarriage and Mother-Tongue Shift among Armenian-Americans in California Using 1980 Census Data.” Department of Sociology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. Unpublished manuscript. 1994. “A Study of Intermarriage of Armenian-Americans in Central California.” Paper presented at the 20th Anniversary Conference of the Society for Armenian Studies, November, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. Jendian, Rosemary. 1985. “Armenians in America” and “Armenians in Fresno.” Pp. 3-5 in Fresno Centennial 1985. Fresno, CA: Armenian Assembly of America and Liberty Printing. 217 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Jiobu, Robert M. 1988. Ethnicity and Assimilation. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Johnson, Colleen Leahy. 1985. Growing Up and Growing Old in Italian-American Families. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Kallen, Horace M. 1924. Culture and Democracy in the United States: Studies in the Group Psychology o f the American Peoples. New York: Boni and Liveright. 1956. Cultural Pluralism and the American Idea: An Essay in Social Philosophy. Philadelphia, PN: University of Pennsylvania Press. Katz, Daniel and Robert Louis Kahn. 1978. The Social Psychology o f Organizations. 2d ed. New York: John Wiley. Keefe, Susan Emley. 1992. “Ethnic Identity: The Domain of Perceptions of and Attachment to Ethnic Groups and Cultures.” Human Organization 51(1):35- 44. Keefe, Susan Emley and Amado M. Padilla. 1987. Chicano Ethnicity. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Keefe, Susan Emley, Gregory G. Reck, and Una Mae Lange Reck. 1989. “Measuring Ethnicity and its Political Consequences at Southern Appalachian High School. Pp. 27-38 in Negotiating the Impact o f Anthropological Theory and Practice, edited by S. Keefe. Washington, D.C.: American Antrhopological Association. Keefe, Susan Emley, Una Mae Lange Reck, and Gregory G. Reck. 1983. “Ethnicity and Education in Southern Appalachia.” Ethnic Groups 5:199-226. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Kennedy, Ruby Jo Reeves. 1944. “Single or Triple Melting Pot? Intermarriage Trends in New Haven, 1870-1940.” American Journal o f Sociology 49(4):331-339. KhorenatsM, Moses. [1913] 1978. History o f the Armenians. Translation and Commentary on the Literary Sources by R. W. Thomson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Khungian, Toros B. 1905. "Fresno’s Armenian Colony.” The Fresno Morning Republican, March 26. Kinket, Barbara and Maykel Verkuyten. 1997. “Levels of Ethnic Self-Identification and Social Context.” Social Psychology Quarterly 60(4):338-354. Kurkjian, Vahan M. 1958. A History o f Armenia. New York: Armenian General Benevolent Union. LaPiere, Richard Tracy. 1930. “ The Armenian Colony in Fresno County, California: A Study in Social Psychology.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Economics, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. Lasswell, Marcia and Thomas Lasswell. 1991. Marriage and the Family. 3d ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Lazarewitz, Bernard and L. Rowitz. 1964. “ The Three-Generations Hypothesis.” American Journal o f Sociology 69:529-538. Lieberson, Stanley. 1961. “A Societal Theory of Race and Ethnic Relations.” American Sociological Review 21:902-910. 1985. “Unhyphenated whites in the United States.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 8( January): 159-180. 219 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Lieberson, Stanley and Mary C. Waters. 1988. From Many Strands: Ethnic and Racial Groups in Contemporary America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Luhtanen, Riia and Jennifer Crocker. 1992. “A Collective Self-Esteem Scale: Self- Evaluation of One’s Social Identity.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18(3):302-318. Magocsi, Paul Robert. 1987. “Are the Armenians really Russians? — Or How the U.S. Census Bureau classifies America’s Ethnic Groups.” Government Publications Review 14:133-168. Malcom, M. Vartan. 1919. The Armenians in America. Boston, MA. Marger, Martin. 1985. Race and Ethnic Relations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Mazian, Florence. 1983. ‘The Patriarchal Armenian Family System: 1914.” Armenian Review 36(Winter): 14-26. 1984. “Armenian Wedding Customs 1914: From Sacred to Profane.” Armenian Review 37(Winter):l-13. McCarthy, Charles. 1998. “Armenian Community Gets View of Homeland.” The Fresno Bee, June 14, pp. A l, A16. McWhorter, John H. 2000. Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America. New York: Free Press. Meguerian, Barbara. 1981. ‘Trends within the Armenian American Community.” Papier presented at the Armenian Assembly Conference, September 11-13, University of California, Berkeley. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Merton, Robert K. 1973. 'T he Perspective of Insiders and Outsiders.” Pp. 99-136 in The Sociology o f Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, edited by R.K. Merton. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Miller, Robin L. 1992. ‘The Human Ecology of Multiracial Identity.” Chapter 3 (pp. 24-36) in Racially Mixed People in America, edited by M. P. P. Root. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Minasian, Armen Don. 1972a. “Settlement Geography of Armenians in Fresno,” Part II. Armenian Review (Winter):64. 1972b. “Settlement Patterns of Armenians in Fresno, California.” M.A. thesis, California State University, Northridge. Minasian, Edward. 1982. The Armenian Community o f California: The First One Hundred Years. Los Angeles, CA: The Armenian Assembly Resource Center. Mindel, Charles, Robert Wesley Habenstein, and Roosevelt Wright. 1988. “Family Lifestyles of America’s Ethnic Minorities: An Introduction.” Pp. 1-14 in Ethnic Families in America, 3d ed., edited by C. Mindel, R. Habenstein, and R. Wright. New York: Elsevier. Mirak. Robert. 1965. “ The Armenians in the United States, 1890-1915.” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. . 1983. Tom Between Two Lands: Armenians in America, 1890 to World War /. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Monahan, Thomas P. 1976. “An Overview of Statistics on Interracial Marriage in the United States, with data on its extent from 1963-1970.” Journal o f Marriage and the Family 38(2):223-231. Mouradian, Claire. 1990. L ’ Armenie: De Staline a Gorbatchev, Histoire d ’une Republique Sovietique. Paris: Editions Ramsay. 221 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Najarian, Beth. 1982. “Armenian Intermarriage in Fresno.” Department of Sociology, California State University, Fresno, CA. Unpublished manuscript. Nalbandian, Louise. [1963] 1967. The Armenian Revolutionary Movement: The Development o f Armenian Political Parties through the Nineteenth Century. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Naroll, Raoul. 1964. “Ethnic Unit Classification.” Current Anthropology 5(4). Nelsen, Hart M. and H. D. Allen. 1974. “Ethnicity, Americanization and Religious Attendance.” American Journal o f Sociology 79:906-921. Nelson, Harold. 1953. “ T he Armenian Family: Changing Patterns of Family Life in a California Community.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Nelson, Lowry. 1943. “Intermarriage Among Nationality Groups in a Rural Area of Minnesota.” American Journal o f Sociology 48(March):585-592. Norusis, Marija J. 1997. SPSS® 7.5 Guide to Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Okamura, Jonathan. 1981. “ ‘Situational Ethnicity.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 4(4):452-465. Ordjanian, Anahid Victoria. 1991. “Children of Ararat: Political Economy and Ideology at an Armenian Ethnic School in the United States.” Ph.D. dissertation, Temple University, PA. Park, Robert Esra. 1930. “Assimilation, Social.” P. 281 in Encyclopedia o f the Social Sciences, Vol. 2, edited by E. R. A. Seligman and A. Johnson. New York: The Macmillan Co. 222 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. . 1950. Race and Culture. New York: Free Press. Park, Robert E. and Ernest W. Burgess. [1921] 1969. Introduction to the Science o f Sociology. 3d ed. Chicago, E L : The University of Chicago Press. Peach, Ceri. 1981. "Ethnic Segregation and Ethnic Intermarriage: A Reexamination of Kennedy’s Triple Melting Pot in New Haven, 1900-1950.” Pp. 193-216 in Ethnic Segregation in Cities, edited by C. Peach, V. Robinson, and S. Smith. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Perez Firmat, Gustavo. 1994. Life on the Hyphen: The Cuban-American Way. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Petersen, William. 1980. "Assimilation and Pluralism.” Pp. 150-160 in Harvard Encyclopedia o f American Ethnic Groups, edited by S. Themstrom, A. Orlov, and O. Handlin. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. Petoyan, Deron. 1995. "Relation of Third Generation Armenian-Americans to the Armenian Church: A Case Study.” M.Div. thesis, St. Vladimir Orthodox Theological Seminary, Crestwood, NY. Pettigrew, Thomas F. 1976. "Ethnicity in American Life: A Social Psychological Perspective.” Pp. 12-24 in Ethnic Identity in Society, edited by Arnold Dashefsky. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College Publishing Co. Phinney, Jean S. and Mary Jane Rotheram, eds. 1987. Children’ s Ethnic Socialization: Pluralism and Development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Porter, J.R. and R.E. Washington. 1993. “Minority Identity and Self-Esteem.” Annual Review o f Sociology 19:139-161. 223 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Portes, Alejandro and Ruben G. Rumbaut. 1996. Immigrant America: A Portrait. 2d. ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press Ransford, H. Edward. 1977. Race and Class in American Society: Black, Chicano, Anglo. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company. 1994. Race and Class in American Society: Black, Latino, Anglo. 2d ed. Rochester, VT: Schenkman Books, Inc. Rigney, Daniel and Thomas J. Hoffman. 1993. “Is American Catholicism Anti- Intellectual?” Journal fo r the Scientific Study o f Religion 32(3):211-222. Rollins, Joan H., ed. 1981. Hidden Minorities. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Romanucci-Ross, Lola and George A. De Vos, eds. 1995. Ethnic Identity: Creation, Conflict, and Accommodation. 3d ed. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Root, Maria P.P., ed. 1992. Racially Mixed People in America. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Rosenthal, Erich. 1960. “Acculturation without Assimilation? The Jewish Community of Chicago, Illinois.” American Journal o f Sociology 66(3):275- 288. Royce, Anya Peterson. 1982. Ethnic Identity: Strategies o f Diversity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Sabagh, Georges, Mehdi Bozorgmehr, and Claudia Der-Martirosian. 1988. “Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics of Armenians in the United States in 1980.” Paper presented at a conference on the International Migration of Middle Easterners and North Africans: Comparative Perspectives, May 19-21, University of California, Los Angeles. 224 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Sandberg, Neil C. 1974. Ethnic Identity and Assimilation: The Polish-American Community Case Study o f Metropolitan Los Angeles. New York: Praeger. Saroyan, William. 1936. Inhale and Exhale. New York: Random House. . 1969. “Miss Carmichael, Miss Thompson.” Pp. 82-90 in Letters from 74 rue Taibout or Don 7 Go But if You Must Say Hello to Everybody, by William Saroyan. New York: World Publishing House. . 1984. ‘T he Armenian and the Armenian.” Ararat 25(Spring):7. Schneider, David M. 1980. American Kinship: A Cultural Account. 2ded. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Shils, Edward. 1967. “Color, the University Intellectual Community, and the Afro- Asian Intellectual.” Daedelus 96(2):279-295. Simirenko, Alex. 1964. Pilgrims, Colonists, and Frontiersmen: An Ethnic Community in Transition. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe. Sollors, Werner, ed. 1989. The Invention o f Ethnicity. New York: Oxford University Press. Sowell, Thomas. 1981. Ethnic America: A History. New York: Basic Books. Spencer, Herbert. 1897. The Principles o f Sociology. Vol. 1. New York: D. Appleton. Sprott, Julie E. 1994. “‘Symbolic Ethnicity’ and Alaska Natives of Mixed Ancestry Living in Anchorage: Enduring Group or a Sign of Impending Assimilation.” Human Organization 53(4):311-322. 225 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Stein, Howard F. and Robert F. Hill. 1977. ‘The Limits of Ethnicity.” American Scholar 46(Spring): 181 - i 89. Stevens, Gillian. 1985. “Nativity, Intermarriage, and Mother-Tongue Shift.” American Sociological Review 50(February):74-83. Takooshian, Harold. 1986-87. “Armenian Immigration to the United States from the Middle East.” Journal o f Armenian Studies 3(1-2): 133-155. Tajfel, Henri and John C. Turner. 1979. ‘The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior.” Pp. 33-48 in The Social Psychology o f Intergroup Relations, edited by S. Worchel and W. Austin. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Tajfel, Henri and John C. Turner. 1986. “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. " PP. 7-24 in Psychology o f Intergroup Relations, 2d ed., edited by S. Worchel and W. Austin. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Tashjian, James H. [ 1947] 1970. The Armenians o f the United States and Canada: A Brief Study. Reprint. San Francisco, CA: R and E Research Associates. ‘T he Constantinople Massacre.” 1896. Contemporary Review 70(October):458,459. Thomas, John L. 1951. ‘The Factor of Religion in the Selection of Marriage Mates.” American Sociological Review 16:487-491. Thomas, William I. and Dorothy Thomas. 1928. The Child in America. New York: Knopf. Tinker, John N. 1982. “Intermarriage and Assimilation in a Plural Society: Japanese- Americans in the United States.” Marriage and Family Review 5, Special Issue: Intermarriage in the United States, edited by G. A. Crester and J. J. Leon, (l):61-74. 226 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Tocqueville, Alexis de. [1835] 2000. Democracy in America. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub. Tucker, M. B. and C. Mitchell-Keman. 1990. “New Trends in Black American Interracial Marriage: The Social Structural Context.” Journal o f Marriage and The Family 52(February):209-218. Turner, Frederick Jackson. 1920. The Frontier in American History. New York: Henry Holt. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1990. Statistical Abstract o f the United States. 110th ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. . 1991. Press Release, June 13. . 2000. “Educational Attainment in the United States.” March (Update). U.S. Census of Religious Bodies. 1916. Volume 1:78, 83,85. U.S. Census Reports. 1920. Volume 0:984-985, T. 7 and 1005. U.S. Commissioner General of Immigration. 1899-1915. Annual Reports. U.S. Immigration Commission. 1907-1910. Reports. 41 volumes. Washington. Van den Berghe, Pierre L. 1967. Race and Racism. New York: John Wiley. . 1978. “Race and Ethnicity: A Sociobiological Perspective.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 1(4):401-411. . 1981. The Ethnic Phenomenon. New York: Elsevier. 227 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Vaughan, Graham M. 1987. “A Social-Psychological Model of Ethnic Identity Development.” Pp. 73-91 in Children’ s Ethnic Socialization: Pluralism and Development, edited by J. S. Phinney and M. J. Rotheram. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Villa, Susie Hoogasian and Mary Kilboume Matossian. 1982. Armenian Village Life Before 1914. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Walker, Christopher J. 1990. Armenia: The Survival o f a Nation. Rev. 2d ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Wallis, Wilson D. [1919] 1965. Fresno Armenians (To 1919). Edited with Introduction by N. Davidian. Lawrence, KS: Coronado Press. Warner, W. Lloyd and Leo Srole. 1945. The Social Systems o f American Ethnic Groups. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Waters, Mary C. 1990. Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. . 1992. ‘The Construction of a Symbolic Ethnicity: Suburban White Ethnics in the 1980s.” Chapter 7 (pp. 75-90) in Immigration and Ethnicity: American Society— “Melting Pot” or “Salad Bowl"? edited by M. D’Innocenzo and J. P. Sirefman. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. . 1996. “Optional Ethnicities: For Whites Only?” Chapter 33 (pp. 444-454) in Origins and Destinies: Immigration. Race, and Ethnicity in America edited by S. Pedraza and R. G. Rumbaut. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Weber, Max. [1921] 1968. Economy and Society: An Outline o f Interpretive Sociology. Edited by G. Roth and C. Wittisch and translated by E. Fischoff. New York: Bedminster Press. 228 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Yancey, William L., Eugene P. Ericksen, and Richard N. Juliani. 1976. “Emergent Ethnicity: A Review and Reformulation.” American Sociological Review 41(3):391-403. Yinger, J. Milton. 1981. “Toward a Theory of Assimilation and Dissimilation.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 4(July):249-264. . 1985. “Ethnicity.” Annual Review o f Sociology 11:151-180. 1994. Ethnicity: Source o f Strength? Source o f Conflict? Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Young, George. 1926. Constantinople. London. Zangwill, Israel. 1909. The Melting Pot. New York: The Macmillan Co. Zenian, David. 1996. “Fresno: A Home Away from Home.” AGBU News Magazine, November, pp. 10-12. Zenner, Walter P. 1982. “Arabic-Speaking Immigrants in North America as Middleman Minorities.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 5(4):457-477. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX A CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY. FRESNO October 12, 1998 Dear Armenian friends: My name is Matthew Ari Jendian. I am a Ph.D. candidate at USC and am teaching in the Department of Sociology at CSU, Fresno. [personal photo inserted here] I am conducting my dissertation research on Armenian- Americans in the San Joaquin Valley. You may have read about me and my study in the Armenian press over the summer. (Enclosed is a copy of the press clipping from The Armenian Reporter along with headlines from other papers.) Your household was randomly selected by computer from a public directory to participate in this study. Next week, you will receive a large envelope containing the questionnaire. As a part of this study, it is very important that you return the questionnaire for this research to accurately represent Armenians living in Central California. Your participation is completely anonymous. Please see the enclosed fact sheet entitled “Frequently Asked Questions” for more information about this study. As a gesture of my appreciation, and because it is important for me to have every survey completed and returned, I am offering twelve $100 cash prizes in a sweepstakes. Your odds of being drawn are between 1:50 and 1:25, depending on the number of surveys returned. (Those odds are better than Vegas!) Department of Sociology 5340 V C antus Dr. M/S SS107 Fresoj. CA 93740-8019 209 278-2891 Fax 209.278-4598 I want to thank you in advance for helping me with my dissertation research, so I can earn my doctoral degree. Sincerely, Matthew A. Jendian THE C a l i f o r n i a s t a t e l w e r s i t y 230 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 TOE ARMENIAN REPORTER m i Jung l?i im ( \ l It ( ) K \ I \ M \ \ s Jendian Presents Research & Conducts Survey of Central California Armenians Fresno, CA Matthew Ari Jendian presented his research at the 26th Annual Conference of the National Association for Ethnic Studies, held here March 25-29. The session. "Ethnic Identity in North America: The Armenians.” was organized by Dr. Isabel Kaprielian. the Kazan Professor of Modem Armenian and Immigration History at California State University. Fresno, who presented "Armenian Neighborhoods: Their Rise and Fall." Dr. Rubina Peroomian (UCLA) read "Literature as Witness to the Formation and Trans formation of the Armenian- American Ethnic Identity.” Jendian's paper, entitled “Family Relations and Community Relations of Intermarried Armenian Couples,” emerged from his background research and pilot study for his Ph.D. dissertation in progress at the University of Southern California. The session was lively, as the papers sparked interesting discussion. Matthew' Jendian graduated from California State University. Fresno in 1991 with a B.A. in Sociology, while minoring in Psychology and Armenian Studies. He received his M.A. in Sociology in 1995 at the University of Southern California. Currently, he is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Sociology at USC and teaching part time at CSU. Fresno. Supervising the dissertation is Dr. H. Edward Ransford, chair of the committee, and Profes sors Richard Hrair Dekmejian and Roseann Giamisso. Soon, Jendian will mail a survey to Armenian- American households randomly selected from the Haines Criss-Cross Directory of the San Joaquin Valley. To be considered a valid and scientific study, more than 50% of the respondents, who will remain anonymous, must complete and return the survey. [picture deleted] 8_____________ Sa tu r d a y. J u n e 2 0 .1 9 9 8 T he A r m en ia n M ir r o r-S pe c t a t o r Community News Research on California Armenians Yields Interesting Results The California Courier. June 25.1998 Nor Gvank. Vol. XX.. No. 28. June 18.1998 Research on Armenian Intermarriage Jendian Presents Research and Conducts Survey Presented at CSU, Fresno Conference of Central California Armenians The Armenian Observer. June 10.1998. Page 13 Kaprielian, Peroomian, and Jendian Present Papers at Annual Conference ofNAES Held in Fresno 231 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Frequently Asked Questions about The Study of Armenian-Americans in Central California Here are answers to some frequently asked questions about this study. What is the purpose of this ________study?________ The aim of this study is to add to our knowledge of Americans of Armenian descent and to broaden our understanding of ethnicity in America today. This research will add to the body of literature on America's ethnic groups. How did I get chosen to be in _________this study?_________ Using a public directory for the Central San Joaquin Valley, a database of Armenian households was created. From this list, the computer randomly selected 600 households to be part of this study. Why is my participation in this ______ study important?______ I realize that the lime it lakes for you to complete the questionnaire may be an imposition; however, you provide a perspective that no one else can give us. And. because you are part of a small, but representative sample of Armenian-Americans in the Central San Joaquin Valley, it is extremely important that your responses be included in the study if the results are to accurately represent the people of Armenian descent in this area. Are my answers anonymous? Yes. Your name is never placed on the questionnaire. In fact, there are NO identifying markers on the questionnaire, so your answers cannot be linked to you. How long will the questionnaire take me to fill out?______ In the pretest of the questionnaire on a number of people, the time it took to complete ranged from 35- 65 minutes. Why is the questionnaire so Iona? We needed to ask about many aspects of your life to fully understand your experience of your ethnicity. Only in this way can we gain insight into the com plexities of ethnicity in America. t FRESNO STATE fV i/h -is Stmt Uan How docs participating in this study benefit me? You will get many rewards from filling out this questionnaire: • The pride of being a part of the first comprehensive study of Armenian-Americans in Central California in over 45 years • The satisfaction of making a contribution to the scientific and scholarly literature about Armenian-Americans & eth nicity in America • The gratification of assisting a young person in acquiring his Ph.D. • Feedback about results if you wish for a report to be mailed to you • A chance to win one of twelve SI00 cash prizes by returning your questionnaire and the sweepstakes’ entry postcard by December 1 . 1998 Whom can I call or email if I have questions? Matthew Jendian (209) 278-2891 matthewj @csufresno.edu 232 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. orlsHS CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY. FRESNO Depurtnvni of Sociology 5340 N C antus Dr M/S SS107 Frcsoo.CA 93740-8019 309 278-3891 Pa* 309 378-4598 October 19. 1998 Dear Armenian friends: Last week, you received a letter notifying you that your household was randomly selected to be a part of my Ph.D. dissertation research—‘The Study of .Armenian-Americans in Central California." The purpose of this research is to add to our knowledge of Americans of Armenian descent and to broaden our understanding of ethnicity in America today. My goal is to accurately construct a picture of the Armenians in Central California and to add to the body of research on America's ethnic groups. This is where you come in. Using the 1998 Haines Directory for the Central San Joaquin Valley (available at the CSUF library), a database of 5.250 Armenian households was created. Your household was one of 600 selected entirely by chance and your response is completely anonymous. For the results to accurately reflect the experiences and opinions of Armenians in the Central Valley, a high response rate is essential. Thus, your participation is extremely important—and so. I am thanking you in advance for contributing your time and energy, and especially for helping me with this project. When you return your completed questionnaire in the enclosed stamped envelope and the sweepstakes' entry postcard before December 1. you will be entered in the drawing for one of twelve $100 cash prizes. Winners will be notified by December 23, 1998. A list of winners will be provided by calling or emailing me at the listings below. WHO should fill out the questionnaire? Although I would appreciate a completed survey from any adult (age 18 or over) of Armenian descent in your household, in order to maximize the number of third and fourth generation Armenian-Americans included in the sample. I’d prefer to hear from individuals whose grandparents or great-grandparents were the first to come to this country. If there are no fourth or third generation adults in your household, then I'd like to hear from an adult whose parents immigrated (a second-generation Armenian-American). If you are the first generation to come to America and have no adult children living in your household, your response is welcomed. What if there is more than one adult in the household who is fourth generation (or third, or second, or first)? The person who had the last birthday should complete the questionnaire. If you have any questions about the project, please call me at Fresno State (278-2891). I will be more than happy to talk to you about the study. You can also email me at matthewj@csufresno.edu. I sincerely thank you for your assistance. Respectfully. Matthew A. Jendian Note: if there are no adults of Armenian descent in your household, kindly return the survey along with the original mailed envelope, so your household can be removed from the database. THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY 233 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FRESNO STATE California State University, Fresno THE STUDY OF ARMENIAN-AMERICANS IN CENTRAL CALIFORNIA CONFIDENTIAL RESEARCH DOCUMENT 234 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Statement on Protection of Information Data from participants in The Study of Armenian-Americans in Central California are protected under provisions of the Federal Human Subjects Protection Act of 1976. The information given for this study will be kept entirely confidential. You should be aware that: • All information gathered will be used only for research purposes; only the primary researcher and research staff will have access to the questionnaires. • The information provided will be analyzed for overall and group patterns, not for individual responses. • At no time will names or identifying characteristics be used to describe any study participant. • Participation is entirely voluntary, and you may refuse to answer particular questions. • This study has been determined to be in compliance with federal regulations concerning Human Subjects Protection, as certified by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Southern California. If you have any questions concerning the purpose of this study, or if you need any assistance in filling out any part of the survey, please call me at (209) 278-2891 or email me at matthewj@csufresno.edu. 235 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. WELCOME TO T he S t u d y o f A r m e n i a n - A m e r i c a n s in C e n t r a l C a l i f o r n i a I hope you will enjoy participating in this study. This research represents the first comprehensive study on Armenian-Americans in Central California in over 45 years. The purpose is to add to the body of research on America's ethnic groups and contribute to the sparse scholarly research about the Armenian experience in America. With your responses to the items in this questionnaire, you will help us understand the dynamics of ethnicity in America, in general, and the people of Armenian descent, in particular. I AM GRATEFUL FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. You are an important part of this study. Every completed questionnaire is crucial. Thank you for your cooperation. - Matthew A. Jendian WHO should fill out the questionnaire? If there is only one adult person (age 18 or over) who is of Armenian descent in your household. I'd like that person to complete the questionnaire. If there is more than one adult of Armenian descent, please read on to determine who should fill out the questionnaire. In order to maximize the number of third and fourth generation Armenian-Americans included in the sample. I'd like to hear from individuals whose grandparents or great-grandparents were the first to come to this country. If there are no fourth or third generation adults in your household, then I'd like to hear from an adult whose parents immigrated (a second-generation Armenian-American). If you are the first generation to come to America and have no adult children living in your household. I'd like to hear from you. What if there is more than one adult in the household who is fourth generation (or third, or second, or first)? The person who had the last birthday should complete the questionnaire. Instructions for Filling Out the Questionnaire The questionnaire asks for your perceptions and evaluations on a wide variety of issues. Please answer all items. Additional information about this study can be found in the fact sheet entitled "FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS." Before you begin the questionnaire, please read the STATEMENT ON PROTECTION OF INFORMATION on the inside front cover of this booklet. Completion of this questionnaire implies that you understand the nature of the study and participate voluntarily. In completing the questionnaire, you should remember: • There are no ''right'' or “wrong" answers to these questions; answer as quickly as you can, giving the answer that first comes to mind. • If you wish to comment on any questions or qualify your answers, please use the margins or a separate sheet of paper. Your comments will be read and taken into account. ■ Please return this survey in the enclosed, addressed, stamped envelope. If you have any questions concerning the purpose of this study, or if you need any assistance in filling out any part of the survey, please call me at 278-2891 or email me at matthewj@csufresno.edu. 236 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. START HERE_____________________________________________________________ 1. People have many different ways of thinking about or identifying themselves. We would like you to use the space below to describe yourself in your own words. Please give as many identities or descriptions of yourself (such as male/female, married, etc.), one phrase or word to each line. Write as if you were thinking of these descriptions to yourself, not giving them aloud to anyone else. Write things down in the order that they occur to you. Don’t worry about logic or “importance.” Do this as quickly as possible, writing each description as it comes to mind. A. __________________________________________________________________________ B. ___________________________________________________________________ C. ___________________________________________________________________ D. ___________________________________________________________________ E. ________________________________________________________________ F. ___________________________________________________________________ G. ___________________________________________________________________ H. ___________________________________________________________________ I. ___________________________________________________________________ J. ___________________________________________________________________ NOW, please go back and circle the three most important or relevant identities or descriptions, ranking them from 1 to 3 in order of importance (1 being most important). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BACKGROUND When people ask you what your ethnic background is, what do you answer? 3a. How important is that background to you? I Extremely important I Very important Z Somewhat important Z Not very important Z Not at all important 3b. Why do you feel your background is that important or unimportant? 4. Are there times in your life that you identify more, or less, with your ethnic background (e.g.. during childhood, adolescence, or adulthood; at school, church, or work; in public or at home: with friends or family)? Z No — > Go to question 5a Z Yes. Please explain:_____________________________________ 5a. Do you have more than one ethnic background or ancestry? Z No — > Go to question 6 Z Yes. (please specify): mother's side__________ father’s side _________ 5b. When you were growing up. did your family do anything to emphasize one part of your background more than the other(s)? Z No. Z Yes — > Please tell me about this: _____________________________ 6. Where were you bom? Z United States (specify: city, state): Other country (specify: city & country):__________________________ 238 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7a. How do you think of yourself; as an: (Check one box) Z Armenian Z Armenian-American Z American Z Istanbul-Armenian Z Iranian-Armenian Z Armenian from Hayastan Z Lebanese-Armenian Z Other (specify)___________________________ 7b. Have you always thought of yourself this way? Z Yes. Z No — > How has it changed? ________ 7c. Is this, in fact, how your friends, in general, think of you? Z Yes, definitely so. Z Yes, probably so. Z No. probably not. Z No. definitely not. S. In your opinion, what does it mean to be Armenian? What makes a person a member of this ethnic group? 9. In your opinion, are Armenian-Americans distinct from other ethnic or cultural groups in America? Z No. ~> Go to question 10. Z Yes --> How are Armenians different from other groups?____________ 10. What are the traits of Armenian-Americans that you think are the best? the worst? best: ______________________________________________________________ worst: _____________________________________________________________ 11. Is there any ethnic group you think is similar to Armenians? In what way are they close? 239 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12. Are there any benefits in being Armenian? 2 No. -> Go to question 13 I Yes ~>Can you recall a time when you have benefited from being Armenian? 13. List up to three problems facing the Armenian community in Central California and rank them in order of importance (1 is most important and 3 is least important). Rank Specific Problem 14a. Tell me a little about your parents and grandparents. Please indicate for each: place and year of birth, year (approximate) of arrival to the USA, ethnic background, and religious affiliation (specify denomination). (Write "NA” for not applicable.) Place and year Year of arrival Ethnicity Religious Affiliation of birth (please specify) Mother _______________ _________ _____________ __________________ Father _______________ _________ _____________ _____________________ Your Mother's Mother _______________ _________ _____________ __________________ Your Mother's Father _______________ _________ _____________ __________________ Your Father's Mother _______________ _________ _____________ __________________ Your Father's Father _______________ _________ _____________ __________________ 14b. Which of your ancestors first came to the United States—your parents, grandparents, or someone further back? mother's side______________________ father’s side______________________ approx. year approx. year_____________________ locations settled____________________ locations settled__________________ 15. While you were growing up, what was the main occupation of your father and mother? (please specify job titles) father: ____________________________ mother:__________________________ 240 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16. Do/Did your parents speak Armenian? ~ No I Yes, my father only I Yes, my mother only Z Yes. both my father and mother 17. How did your parents feel about and identify with their ethnic background? 18. Do/Did you consider yourself a member of the Armenian ethnic group ... CURRENTLY? WHEN YOU WERE GROWING UP? I No, Not at all Z No, Not at all Z Not very much Z Not very much Z Yes, Somewhat Z Yes, Somewhat Z Yes. Quite a bit Z Yes, Quite a bit Z Yes, Very much so Z Yes, Very much so 19. Did you ever attend an Armenian summer camp? Z No Z Yes, ~> When (How old were you)? _________________ 20. Some neighborhoods have many Armenian families and a definite Armenian “flavor.” How do you recall your neighborhood being when you were growing up? Z No Armenian neighbors Z A few Armenian neighbors Z Some Armenian neighbors Z Mostly or all Armenian neighbors 21. While growing up, how often did you and your family visit with other Armenians (excluding relatives)? Z Never Z Rarely Z Sometimes Z Fairly often Z Very often 22. Has the way you celebrate holidays (Christmas, Thanksgiving, or Easter) changed since you were a child? Briefly describe a typical holiday during your childhood and how it is similar or different from today (e.g., with whom do/did you get together, what do/did you eat and do, etc.) 241 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23. Here is a list of things people consider to be important factors defining Armenian identity. First, read through the list of six items. Then tell us the order in which you would rank them. Write “ 1” next to the factor that is MOST IMPORTANT. Write “2" next to the SECOND most important, “3” next to the THIRD, and so on. Speaking Armenian Knowing Armenian history Being active in Armenian organizations Feeling proud of one’s Armenian heritage Identifying with Armenian people Having Armenian parents FRIENDS AND ACQUAINTANCES____________________________________________ Think about the types of friends you've had at different times in your life. How many were Armenian: None or Fewer than About More than All or almost none half half half almost ail 24a. when you were in elementary school? 2 2 2 2 2 24b. when you were in high school? 2 2 2 2 2 24c. when you were in college? 2 2 2 2 2 24d. today? 2 2 2 2 2 25. When you date(d). how often do/did you go out with non-Armenians compared to going out with other Armenians? 2 Always non-Armenians 2 Mostly non-Armenians 2 Roughly the same 2 Mostly Armenians 2 Always Armenians 26. Which of the following professionals or businesses that you deal with now are Armenian? (Check as many as apply.) 2 Doctor 2 Lawyer 2 Accountant 2 Dentist 2 Mechanic 2 Other (please specify): _______________________________________ 2 None 242 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. OPINIONS_________________________________________________________________ 27. Please indicate how much you AGREE or DISAGREE with each statement. Strongly Mildly No Mildly Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree It is not possible to stay Armenian without speaking Armenian. Z Z Z Z Z When I notice an Armenian name on a shop or in the media Z Z Z Z Z (such as movie credits, press) I feel happy, proud. Unlike American-born Armenians, some recent Armenian Z Z Z Z Z immigrants to America are crude, clannish. If the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church does not use Z Z Z Z Z English in its services, the American-born youth will stop coming to church. If someone said something bad about Armenian people. I Z Z Z Z Z would feel almost as if they had said something bad about me. It is important for me to contribute my time, talent, and finances to the Armenian community. The division of the Armenian community into various political groups, such as Hunchags. Ramgavars. Tashnags. is irrelevant in this day and age. Some equality in marriage is a good thing but, by and large, the husband ought to have the main say in family matters. I would vote for an Armenian political candidate at local or national elections regardless of party affiliation. You can be for your own people first and still be a good American. A woman should be expected to change her name when she marries. Our children should learn to speak Armenian. A person should always consider the needs of his family as a whole more important than his own. It is better to marry someone of your own ethnic background Most of the time I don't feel ethnic at all. Armenians in the diaspora should eventually settle in the Republic of Armenia to avoid assimilation. 243 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Strongly Mildly No Mildly Strongly Agree Agree Opinion Disagree Disagree I would be willing to live in a free Armenia. G If necessary. I would fight to preserve the freedom of Armenia. □ A woman should have the right to an abortion if she wishes. G The public schools should teach more about the contributions G of .Armenian people to America. Most people on welfare are lazy; they just won't do a G good day's work and so cannot get hired. It is the responsibility of adult children to be with their G parents in time of serious illness even if the children have moved some distance away from the parents. If a person's life-style runs so against his family's values G that conflict develops, he should change. A person should talk over important life decisions □ (such as marriage, employment, and residence) with family members before taking action. Adult children should live close to their parents so that G mutual aid and cooperation might be better carried on. Armenian music makes me want to dance. G Central California needs an Armenian newspaper. G It is all right to change your name so you will not be taken G for an Armenian. I believe that the United States government should G pressure Turkey to recognize the Armenian Genocide. I feel more comfortable with Armenian people. G I attend the activities that interest me in the Armenian G community no matter what the political affiliation of the organization sponsoring the activity. I often bring up being Armenian in conversations with □ other non-Armenians (e.g.. at work, social functions, etc.). I feel an obligation to help new Armenian arrivals get settled. G I feel a personal stake in the outcome of the G Karabagh-Azerbaijan conflict. 244 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BEHAVIORS 28. There are many ways that we reveal our ethnic backgrounds to others. Names are obviously important, but sometimes people indicate their background by ethnic decals on cars, ethnic t-shirts, or by observing certain holidays. What are the chief ways someone else would know you are of Armenian descent? 29a. Do you speak Armenian? 29b. Do you read/write Armenian? I Not at all Z Not at all Z Very little Z Very little Z Adequately Z Adequately Z Well Z Well Z Very Well Z Very Well 30. How often do you speak each of these languages at home? (Check one box for each language.) ENGLISH ARMENIAN OTHER (specify)___________ Never Seldom Some of the time Most of the time Always 31. How many Armenian dishes can you (or your spouse) cook? Z None Z Fewer than 5 Z Between 6 and 12 Z Between 13 and 19 Z More than 20 32. Have you ever visited Armenia or Historic Armenia (present day Turkey)? Z No Z Yes. When? ____________________________________________ 245 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33. Please indicate HOW OFTEN you do the following activities: Never Rarely Some- Fairly Very times often often eat Armenian food at home? I 2 2 2 2 go to restaurants that specialize in Armenian dishes? 2 I I 2 I speak with or visit any of your Armenian relatives 2 2 2 2 2 (either by phone or in person)? speak with or visit any of your Armenian friends 2 2 2 2 2 (either by phone or in person) ? listen to the Armenian Radio Hour? 2 2 2 2 2 watch Armenian Teletime. Horizon, or Hye Talk? 2 2 2 2 2 read Armenian literature 2 2 2 2 2 (either in Armenian or in translation) ? receive Armenian newspapers or magazines 2 2 2 2 2 (either in English or Armenian) ? fast or abstain from animal products or other items 2 2 2 2 2 during Lent or Holy Week before Easter? 34. Have you. in the last year, attended or participated in requiem services, marches, demonstrations, or public ceremonies for April 24? 2 No 2 Yes (please specify): ___________________________________ 35. How would you describe your feelings towards Turkey's denial of the Armenian Genocide? 36. Have you ever contacted your Congressional Representative/Senator by letter, phone, or email? 2 No. -> Go to question 37 Yes -> For what reason?: (check as many as apply) to recognize April 24 as "A Day of Remembrance of Man’s Inhumanity to Man" for another Armenian issue (specify): other (please specify):____________ 37. How much prejudice is there against Armenian-Americans in Central California today? 2 None at all 2 A little 2 Some 2 Quite a bit 2 A great deal 246 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38. Have you ever been discriminated against because you were an Armenian in America? Check either NO or YES for each of the following statements: NO YES Z I Getting a job Z Z Getting a promotion I I Joining a club Z Z Admission to school or college Z Z Buying/renting an apartment or house Z Z OTHER: _________________________ 39. What church did you and/or your family attend when you were a child? Z None --> go to question 41 Z Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church Z Armenian Protestant Church (denomination:_________________ Z Armenian Catholic Church Z Other (specify)__________________________________________ 40. 41. How often did you attend that church as a child? Z Never Z Z Less than once a year Z Z About once/twice a year Z Z Several times a year Z What is your current religious affiliation ? Z None --> go to question 44 Z Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church Z Armenian Protestant Church (denomination: Z Armenian Catholic Church Z Other (specify)__________________________ About once a month 2-3 times a month Every week Several times a week 42. How often do you attend that church? Z Never Z Less than once a year Z About once/twice a year Z Several times a year About once a month 2-3 times a month Every week Several times a week 43. What is the main reason you attend the church you do? 247 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44. In the last year, how many (if any) activities did you attend that were sponsored by Armenian organizations? Some activities are held only once a year, others more often. Please circle the number for each type of activity listed below. Times attended in the last year Armenian Festival/Bazaar/Picnic 0 1-2 3-5 6-10 11+ Armenian Dances / “Kef Nights” 0 1-2 3-5 6-10 11+ Musical Concert 0 1-2 3-5 6-10 11+ Art Exhibit 0 1-2 3-5 6-10 11+ Lecture/Panel Discussion 0 1-2 3-5 6-10 11+ Theatrical Event 0 1-2 3-5 6-10 11+ Sports Matches 0 1-2 3-5 6-10 11+ Armenian Convention/Weekend 0 1-2 3-5 6-10 11+ 45. How many voluntary organizations do you presently belong to? How many of these are Armenian? A list is provided below to help you remember. Please count ALL organizations you belong to of each type listed; then write the number of Armenian organizations in the second column. Write “zero” (0) if you do not belong to an organization of the type listed. Total # of # of Armenian organizations organizations Political Parties_____________________________ Charitable Organizations ____ Cultural/Artistic Associations ____ Sports Organizations____________________ ____ Scholarly Associations ____ Professional Associations________________ ____ Church Committees ____ Other (specify:_________________ ) ____ 46. How often do you attend activities/meetings of: Armenian organizations in general? I Never Z Rarely Z Once a month Z 2-3 times a month Z Weekly 248 non-Armenian organizations? Z Never Z Rarely Z Once a month Z 2-3 times a month □ Weekly Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. YOUR FAMILY____________________________________________________________ 47. What is your current marital status? I Never married — > go to question 66 Z Married - > Is this your first marriage?__Z Yes Z No -> 2nd. 3rd. or 4th ?___ Z Widowed Z Separated Z Divorced NOTE: In answering the following questions, please consider your current spouse if you are remarried. If widowed, separated, divorced, consider your previous spouse. 48. In what church were you married? Z None; it was a civil marriage. Z Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church Z Armenian Protestant Church (denomination:_________________________ ) Z Armenian Catholic Church Z Other (specify)____________________________________________ 49. What year were you married? ____________________________________ 50. What is/was your spouse’s main occupation? (please note specific job title) ___________________________________________ 51. What is/was the total number of years of schooling your spouse completed? 52. What is the highest degree your spouse has earned?_________________________ 53. Where and in what year was your spouse bom? ____________________________ 54. If your spouse was NOT bom in the USA, in what year did he/she arrive? ________ 55. What is your spouse's current religious affiliation? Z None Z Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church Z Armenian Protestant Church (denomination:_________________________ ) Z Armenian Catholic Church Z Other (specify)________________________________________ 249 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56. 57. 58a. 58b. 59a. 60. Was your spouse raised in this denomination? d No — > What denomination was your spouse raised in ?. d Yes. How often does your spouse attend that church? d Never d Less than once a year d About once/twice a year d Several times a year About once a month 2-3 times a month Every week Several times a week What is the ethnic background of your spouse's father and mother? father: ___________________________ mother: ______________ How does your spouse identify ethnically? Does/Did your spouse speak Armenian? d Not at all d Very little d Adequately d Well d Very Well 59b. read/write Armenian? d Not at all d Very little d Adequately d Well d Very Well Before you met your spouse, what were your views about marrying someone of the same ethnic, religious, and/or racial background? Please explain what you thought then:_____________________________________ 61. How was your spouse initially received by your parents/family? d Very well d Somewhat well d Not too well d Not at all well 62. Did this reception by your parents/family change over time? d No d Yes. for the better d Yes. for the worse Please explain _______________________________________________________ 250 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63. How were you initially received by your spouse’s parents/family? Z Very well I Somewhat well I Not too well I Not at all well 64. Did this reception by your spouse’s parents/family change over time? Z No Z Yes. for the better Z Yes. for the worse Please explain _________________________________________________ 63. Do you and/or your spouse feel unwelcome at Armenian church or Armenian community functions? Z No. Z Yes. Please explain:_________________________ 66. Do you have any children? Z No --> go to question 72 Z Yes. How many and what are their ages? __________ 67a. Do any of your children speak Armenian? 67b. read/write Armenian? Not at all Very little Adequately Well Very Well 68. How do your children identify themselves ethnically?________________________ 69. In what religious denomination are/were your children raised? Z None Z Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church Z Armenian Protestant Church (denomination:______________________ ) Z Armenian Catholic Church Z Other (specify)____________________________________________ 70. Are any of your children married? Z Yes. — > To a member of what ethnic group: ______________________ Z No. 251 Not at all Very little Adequately Well Very Well Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71. Have you personally done things to teach your children about your Armenian background? 2 No — > Go to question 72 2 Yes --> Please explain what you have done: ____________________ NOTE: If you do not have children, please consider the following questions hypothetically. 72. How important is it to you that your children: Not at all Not very Somewhat Very Extremely important important important important important be aware of their Armenian background 2 2 2 2 2 keep any Armenian customs or traditions 2 2 2 2 G marry someone of the same ... ethnic background? 2 □ 2 □ □ religion? 2 2 2 2 2 73a. (Would) Did you give your child(ren) an Armenian name? 2 No 2 Yes. an Armenian middle name 2 Yes, an Armenian first name 2 Yes. Armenian first and middle names 73b. (Would) Do/Did you send your child(ren) to an Armenian day school? 2 No — > why not? ___________________________________ 2 Yes — > why? ______________________________________ 73c. (Would) Do/Did you send your child(ren) to: NO YES an Armenian Summer Camp? 2 2 an Armenian Saturday School? 2 2 74. Would you like your child(ren) to visit Armenia? 2 No 2 Yes 75. What would you hope your grandchildren team about being Armenian? 252 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. PERSONAL BACKGROUND_________________________________________________ Now, we need to know a little about you. The information you give will be used for statistical purposes only. 76. Are you: 3 Female 3 Male 77. What are the last three digits of your CA zip code: 9 3 _ _ 78. What is your date of birth? (month/day/year) ______ /______ /_____ 79. If you were NOT bom in the United States, what year did you come to the USA? ________ have you become an American citizen? [ ] No [1 Yes — > what year?____ 80. What are the total number of years of schooling you have now completed? ______ 81. What is the highest degree you have received? ___________________________ 82. Are you currently registered to vote? 3 No 3 Yes 3 Not eligible to register 83. Do you consider yourself a: 3 Democrat 3 Republican 3 Independent 3 Green 3 Other (specify)_____________________________________ 84. On a scale from "very liberal" to "very conservative,” how would you rate your political views or opinions? 3 Very Liberal 3 Somewhat Liberal 3 Moderate 3 Somewhat Conservative 3 Very Conservative 253 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85. Did you vote in the last election (June 2, 1998 Direct Primary)? Z No Z Yes Z Can’t vote 86. Are you officially a member of an Armenian Political party? Z No Z No. but I sympathize with one (please specify: ______________________ ) Z Hunchagian Z Ramgavar Z Tashnagzoutiun Z Other (specify) ________________________________________ 87. Are you presently: Z Employed full time Z Employed part time Z Employed full time with an additional part time job Z Unemployed (looking for work) Z Not employed for pay (includes homemaker, volunteer, full retirement, etc.) 88. What is your main occupation? (If retired or unemployed, what was your occupation when you were working?) (please specify job title)________________________________________________ 89. Please list all persons who presently live in your household (include unmarried children at school). Please indicate their relation to you. age. and marital status. RELATION AGE MARITAL STATUS 90. Aside from the people living with you. do you have any immediate family— such as parents, children, brothers or sisters, or in-laws— living in Central California? Z No — > Go to question 91 Z Yes - > Which relatives are there: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) Z mother Z spouse’s father Z father Z spouse’s mother Z brothers or sisters Z How many? _____ Z children? How many? ___ spouse's brothers or sisters? How many? _____ 254 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91. Check the box that describes your total family income before taxes last year. Telude only your income, (your spouse’s, if married), (and your parents’, if living with them); do not include earnings from any other person in your household. Less than S 10,000 - $60,000 - $69,999 — S 10.000 - S 19,999 Z S70.000 - $79,999 — $20,000 - $29,999 □ $80,000 - $89,999 — $30,000 - $39,999 $90,000 - $99,999 S40.000 - $49,999 - $ 100,000 or more - $50,000 - $59,999 This completes the questionnaire. THANK YOU very much for your time and cooperation in this study. PLEASE RETURN YOUR COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE IN THE ENVELOPE PROVIDED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your ethnic background or family history? In the space provided below, I invite you to write down briefly the story of your Armenian family’s journey from the Old World to America. From where did you or your ancestors come? When and how? Who were they? What did they do for a living in the Old World and in America? Also, any comments you wish to make that you think may help our understanding of Armenians in America will be appreciated, either here or in a separate letter. 255 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Survey Sweepstakes Entry The Study of Artnenian-Americans in Central California The validity of this study depends on the completion of every survey. It’s so important— I’m offering twelve cash prizes. Return this postage-paid postcard and you will be entered in the drawing. Z Yes. I ,___________________________, returned my survey print name before December I, 1998 and want a chance to win $100 cash. your address: _________________________ I declare the above statement is true. signature required for entry •Winners will be notified by December 23. 1998. 256 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Have you returned it? Three weeks ago, a questionnaire about Armenian-Americans in the San Joaquin Valley was mailed to you. You are an important part of this study. If you have already completed and returned your survey, please accept my sincere thanks. I f not, please complete and return the questionnaire and sweepstakes entry postcard by December 1 , 1998 for a chance to win one of twelve S100 cash prizes. Your response is crucial because I have not yet received enough completed questionnaires for me to conduct my analysis and earn my Ph.D. degree. If you did not receive the questionnaire or it was misplaced, please call me (278-2891) and I will mail you another one immediately. Sincerely, Matthew Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. California State University, Fresno Department of Sociology 5340 N. Campus Drive, MS SS107 Fresno, CA 93740-8019 RESEARCH BEING CONDUCTED ON ARMENIAN-AMERICANS OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA Matthew Ari Jendian is conducting his Ph.D. dissertation research on Armenian- Americans of Central California. He is a doctoral candidate in sociology at the University of Southern California and is teaching at California State University, Fresno. You, or one of your friends or family members, may have recently received a questionnaire as part of a random sample of Armenian-American households in Central California. We encourage you to complete the questionnaire and return it as soon as possible or to encourage your friends or family members who may have been selected for the study to do so. That way, this study will accurately represent all people of Armenian descent living in the Central Valley. FRESNO STATE C olifom is Stott University, Fresno 258 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. It's not too late! I really need your help. To date. I have received only 200 completed questionnaires for The Study of Armenian-Americans in Central California. In order to be considered a valid scientific study (and for me to successfully meet the requirements to earn my Ph.D. degree). I must receive at least 300. Therefore, I have extended the sweepstakes entry deadline. If you complete and return the questionnaire and the sweepstakes entry postcard by December 21, you will still be eligible to win one of twelve $100 cash prizes. Winners will be notified by 12/23/98. If you're unable to complete the survey, please consider giving to a relative or friend to do so (Just let me know so I can remove your name from the list). If you've already returned your survey, please accept my sincere thanks. If you did not receive the questionnaire or it was misplaced, please call me (278-2891) and I will mail you another one immediately. Sincerely. Matthew Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX B Scatterplot Matrix of Independent Variables and Cultural Assimilation Generation □ □ □ □ 1 ! I | □ u—h— a a □ C a □ □ □ □ □ a ~~o— □ : a a m □ □ □ opfpia n o m i a m m W ' I n '-rrrnn ri □ □ □ n u n □ o □ m □ Relig Affiliatic □ □ □ n f i __a-—-a~o a n □ □ □ □ Q □ ‘*T>— B ^ 11 'J 11 a □ □ a □ □ a □ □ am a □ ----o □ a. -— - □ □ □ a □ a □ □ □ □ a % Armenian m E r - ^ □ □ id ma a j - j t p r 1 1 1 & 1 ° a H L 1 u a H ij" Yrs of Educ M r H ai1+44 Cultural Assir l 260 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX C Scatterplot Matrix of Independent Variables and Structural Assimilation Generation q □ a a 4 - 1 4 a a a a a a a a □ a a a J a DD| a a ao a a a i m < m & a a ~I 1 □ □ s n a Relig Affiliatic a a a n an ■ 0 '''5 c i n a a a □ a mmm J S r . □ □a □ a a □ a a am □ a □ o J L ________ a a a □ □ □ □ a a a % Armenian a □ — a d o □ n o a □ □ T T * ^ Yrs of Educ ° a a a g 8 i a 1 a ■ Struct Assimi ation 261 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX D Scatterplot Matrix of Independent Variables and Marital Assimilation Generation □ a o i i u □ □ a □ □ □ □ □ a a a □ ° a a a | a n a a a a a 1 § § “"a— 0 □ a a “" a a □ □ □ » ■ ■ ■ ■ » □ □ □ 30 Relig Affiliatic a a a acm 1 a a a □ □ — □ a □ — □ a □ a □ a □ □□ □ a a a □ □ □ □ d a a q _ — ' ' 0 □ a a □ a a □ a % Armenian ■1 a - S— 5---- a □ a D □ a a x j I 1 Yrs of Educ 4 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! _ Q Q Q Q Q J] Q a a t K j a □ □ a a a □ □ □ a a a □ acm a □ a Marital Assirm Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX E Scatterplot Matrix of Independent Variables and Identificational Assimilation Generation □ a a n i l a a a a a q a a a a ° D D 1 a ° a s a & □ a a ! I 1 y □ □ □ □ a □ □ □ cxs Relig Affiliatic a □ oaxi □ □ a □ a a a a a a o a □ □ t r ^ a aa a a go] a a a oji^ ---------a a □ a a a a a □ % Armenian o 0 a a a □ □ a a j 1 1 1 I a j Yrs of Educ 1 i 1 T " | l ” I M | 5 § » f I ! ' □ a atm o □ a a a □ □ a a □ □□ — ID Assimiiatk 0 am L D J □ □ i a i o 1 263 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX F Stem-and-Leaf Plot of Studentized Deleted Residuals for Independent Variables with Cultural Assimilation Frequency Stem & Leaf 1.00 Extremes (=<-2.5) 2.00 -2 . & 4.00 -1 . 5& 30.00 -1.00000111233334 59.00 -0. 5555555566667777788S88899999 64.00 -0 . 000001111222222333333333444444 50.00 0 . 000011111111222233344444 21.00 0 . 556677789 22.00 1.0111112334 15.00' 1 . 56777S& 4.00 2 . 2& 8.00 Extremes 0=2.4) Stem width: 1.00000 Each leaf: 2 case(s) & denotes fractional leaves. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX G Boxplot of Studentized Deleted Residuals for Independent Variables with Cultural Assimilation Studentized Deleted Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX H Stem-and-Leaf Plot of Studentized Deleted Residuals for Independent Variables with Structural Assimilation Frequency Stem & Leaf 1.00 -2 . & 4.00 -2. 2& 11.00 -1.55779 33.00 -1.0000011112334444 35.00 -0. 55555666667778999 42.00 -0. 00000011222223344444 38.00 0 . 000001111223334444 49.00 0 . 5555555666667777778999 24.00 1.00001122344 13.00 1 . 56678& 5.00 2 . 03 Stem width: 1.00000 Each leaf: 2 case(s) & denotes fractional leaves. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX I Boxplot of Studentized Deleted Residuals for Independent Variables with Structural Assimilation 255 Studentized Deleted 267 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX J Stem-and-Leaf Plot of Studentized Deleted Residuals for Independent Variables with Marital Assimilation Frequency Stem & Leaf 2.00 - 2 . 1 19.00 -I . S5777777& 40.00 -1.000011122333333444 20.00 -0. 56788S99 7.00 -0 . 24& 37.00 0 . 011111334444444444 79.00 0 . 555555555555666666677777777788888889999 25.00 I . 00001112233& 4.00 1 . 5& Stem width: 1.00000 Each leaf: 2case(s) & denotes fractional leaves. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX K Boxplot of Studentized Deleted Residuals for Independent Variables with Marital Assimilation Studentized Deleted Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX L Histogram of Frequencies for Marital Assimilation F R E Q U E N C Y 160 140 120 100 Std. Dev = .95 Mean = 2.25 N = 239.00 1.00 Spouse not of Armenian descent 2.00 Spouse of some Armenian descent 3.00 Spouse entirety of Armenian descent 270 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Studentized Residual APPENDIX M Scatterplot of Studentized Residuals versus Predicted Values of Cultural Assimilation 1 ■ □ % QD Q Q D ST* o B f i D n_a. ■ - « - ? © 0ha a -1 « -2 « -3 “ A 5 * 1 K r W D° = 10 ■ 20 30 Unstandardized Predicted Value 271 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX N Scatterplot of Studentized Residuals versus Predicted Values of Structural Assimilation 1 ■ C O 3 ■ g ‘ c 0 < D Q C -a < 0 N ■S -2 c 0 ) T3 3 55 - 3 , 1 a □ c □ a □ a □ iff □ 1 I □ ctj _ a □ i a □ a ° L a •Jo □ □ a Oq » «ha “ a □ □ a O a a ° □ " Dq a a □ o Bl a ° o a Q Qq a a 4 n a a c*t»n ° a □ a a a ° a Qq to □ □ a o a □ 1 a a o a a o □ □ a □ "o' □ □ □ 0 Og ° a a a □ □ 1 □ a 1 a o □ □ a 12 14 16 18 20 22 Unstandardized Predicted Value Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Studentized Residual APPENDIX O Scatterplot of Studentized Residuals versus Predicted Values of Marital Assimilation 2 □ a 1 0 -1 2 -3 1.0 2.0 1.5 2.5 3.0 Unstandardized Predicted Value 273 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Ethnic mobilization and United States national interest: Cuban, Irish, and Jewish lobbies and American foreign policy
PDF
A cultural -ecological analysis of educational aspirations and satisfaction of educational opportunities of Asian -Americans and Hispanics: Understanding the interaction of race and class, paren...
PDF
Changing patterns of interracial marriages of Asian Indians in California
PDF
Effects of parenting style and ethnic identity on European American and Asian Indian adolescents' academic competence and self esteem
PDF
Identity configurations: re-inventing Samoan youth identities in urban California
PDF
"Catholic," "Mestizo," "Sangley": Negotiating "Chinese" identities in Manila 1870--1905
PDF
Comparative analysis of the stress process in AIDS caregivers: Gay male partners, Anglo women, and Latinas
PDF
In church with my ancestors: The changing shape of religious memory in the Republic of Armenia and the North American diaspora
PDF
Interfaith family process and the negotiation of identity and difference
PDF
In and out of marriage: A study of the multiply divorced
PDF
Ethnic identity and nationalism in Taiwan
PDF
Farewell to the empire? National identity, domestic structures, and foreign economic policies of the post -Soviet states
PDF
Filial expectations and social exchange patterns among older Taiwanese parents and their adult children
PDF
Domestic violence in Korean immigrant families
PDF
An integrative analysis of racism and quality of life: A comparison of multidimensional moderators in an ethnically diverse sample
PDF
Communication and community -building: The role of ethnic media in the Chinese immigrant community of Los Angeles
PDF
Deviant cosmopolitanism: Transgressive globalization and traveling citizenship
PDF
Academic performance and persistence of Asian American students in the Los Angeles Community College District
PDF
Chicana poetics: Performing desire, recasting archetypes
PDF
Emergent literacy: A sense of becoming and being literate in Latino families
Asset Metadata
Creator
Jendian, Matthew Ari
(author)
Core Title
Assimilation and ethnicity: Adaptation patterns and ethnic identity of Armenian -Americans in central California
School
Graduate School
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Sociology
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,sociology, ethnic and racial studies,sociology, individual and family studies
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Ransford, Edward (
committee chair
), Dekmejian, Richard (
committee member
), Giarusso, Roseann (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-152383
Unique identifier
UC11334678
Identifier
3054756.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-152383 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
3054756-0.pdf
Dmrecord
152383
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Jendian, Matthew Ari
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
sociology, ethnic and racial studies
sociology, individual and family studies