Joe T. Darden Position Statement

POSITION STATEMENT

Racial Inequality and Unequal Access to Opportunities:
Racial Minorities in Predominantly White Societies

My research interests in the areas of inequality and equity focus on (1) determining the extent of racial inequality and unequal access to opportunities in predominantly white societies, (2) determining the factors related to the inequality and unequal access, and (3) identifying effective policies that will address the issues.

Differential Incorporation Model

The first model is referred to as "differential incorporation." It means that the white majority differentially incorporates some groups into mainstream society to a greater extent than it does others. The groups least incorporated into the mainstream in white society are people of color, i.e., racial minorities (Henry, 1994, p. 13). However, some minorities are more incorporated into mainstream white society than others. Incorporation is conceptualized on the basis of equal access to the rewards that the economic and political systems generate and distribute (Breton, et al., 1990).

Differential incorporation has been conceptualized as a two-way process. One process relates to the internal characteristics of the racial minority group in terms of its strengths and weaknesses, both economically and politically, and its cultural values. The other process involves external forces imposed on the minority group by the white majority despite the socioeconomic status of the minority (Gordon, 1964, p. 8; Lieberson, 1980). Racial discrimination is a major form of these external forces.

Place Stratification Model

A second model which describes the relationship between the white majority and racial minorities is referred to as place stratification. Place stratification for racial minorities implies that racial inequality is an integral part of the social structure reflected by the unequal spatial distribution of minority groups and their residential segregation from the white majority (Logan, Alba & Leung, 1996). The place stratification model further suggests that differential characteristics of neighborhoods are associated with the uneven distribution of minority groups (Darden & Kamel, 2000; Freeman, 2000).

The ideology and models described above are tested using census data on population and housing characteristics. The universe consists of metropolitan areas. The smallest unit of analysis employed is the census tract which represents the neighborhood.

The techniques used include a variety of indexes. Among those most frequently used are the index of dissimilarity (Duncan & Duncan, 1955), the isolation index (Lieberson, 1981), and the Gini index (Darden & Tabachneck, 1980). A socioeconomic index has also been used (Darden & Kamel, 1999).

The use of software to map the data and determine the extent of unevenness in the spatial distribution of racial groups has been limited. To date, Map Info has been used most frequently. All of the indexes and Map Info have worked well for my research. My preference, however, is the index of dissimilarity.

There are shortcomings to using the indexes. All of the indexes are influenced by the size of the spatial units used (e.g., census tracts, wards, enumeration areas, blocks). This makes comparative research of residential segregation between countries more difficult. For example, how does one interpret the level of residential segregation of blacks in Britain at the ward level (Peach, 1996) with blacks in the United States at the tract level? In other words, the spatial units are not standardized.

Breton, R., et al. (1990). Ethnic identity and equality: Varieties of experience in a Canadian city. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Darden, J. T. (2000). Race relations in the city. In R. Paddison (Ed.) Handbook of urban studies (Chap. 13). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Darden, J. T. & Kamel, S. (1999, Summer). Spatial and socioeconomic analysis of Arab/West Asians and Jews in the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area. The Arab World Geographer, 2(2), 149-173.

Darden, J. T. & Kamel, S. (2000). Black residential segregation in the city and suburbs of Detroit: Does socioeconomic status matter? Journal of Urban Affairs, 22(1), 1-13.

Darden, J. T. & Tabachneck, A. (1980). Algorithm 8: Graphic and mathematical descriptions of inequality, dissimilarity, segregation, or concentration. Environment and Planning A, 12, 227-234.

Duncan, O. & Duncan, B. (1955, April). Methodological analysis of segregation indexes. American Sociological Review, 20, 210-217.

Freeman, L. (2000). Minority housing segregation: A test of the three perspectives. Journal of Urban Affairs, 22(1), 15-35.

Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion and national origins. New York: Oxford University Press.

Henry, F. (1994). The Caribbean diaspora in Toronto: Learning to live with racism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Lieberson, S. (1980). A piece of the pie: Black and white immigrants since 1880. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lieberson, S. (1981). An asymmetrical approach to segregation. In C. Peach, V. Robinson, & S. Smith (Eds.) Ethnic segregation in cities (61-82). London: Crom Helm

Logan, J., Alba., R., & Leung, S. (1996). Minority access to white suburbs: A multiregional comparison. Social Forces, 74(3), 851-881.

Peach, C. (1996). Does Britain have ghettos? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 21(1), 216-235.

Reeves, F. (1983). British racial discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rose, E. J. B. & Associates. (1969). Colour and citizenship. London: Oxford University Press.

Racial Inequality and Unequal Access to Opportunities: Racial Minorities in Predominantly White Societies by Joe T. Darden
Joe T. Darden Urban Affairs Programs Michigan State University
POSITION STATEMENT Racial Inequality and Unequal Access to Opportunities: Racial Minorities in Predominantly White Societies Research Interests My research interests in the areas of inequality and equity focus on (1) determining the extent of racial inequality and unequal access to opportunities in predominantly white societies, (2) determining the factors related to the inequality and unequal access, and (3) identifying effective policies that will address the issues. Ideology I begin with the premise that racial inequality and unequal access are best understood by first examining the ideology of the dominant group towards racial minorities. A core belief held by most members of the dominant group in predominantly white societies is the ideology of white supremacy. This ideology holds that in any relation involving people of color, the white race must have the superior positions (Rose & Associates, 1969, p. 68). Such an ideology provides a means by which the dominant group carves out a certain vision of how things are and ought to be (Reeves, 1983). It is the dominant racial group that makes most decisions and establishes the racial climate, policies, practices and the spatial and social structure of society (Darden, 2000). When the ideology of the dominant group is white supremacy, the structure of society will be racial residential segregation, racial inequality in the characteristics of neighborhoods, and unequal access to opportunities on the basis of race. Theoretical Framework and Spatial Dimensions The ideology of white supremacy influences two related models which describe the relationship between the white majority population and racial minorities. Differential Incorporation Model The first model is referred to as "differential incorporation." It means that the white majority differentially incorporates some groups into mainstream society to a greater extent than it does others. The groups least incorporated into the mainstream in white society are people of color, i.e., racial minorities (Henry, 1994, p. 13). However, some minorities are more incorporated into mainstream white society than others. Incorporation is conceptualized on the basis of equal access to the rewards that the economic and political systems generate and distribute (Breton, et al., 1990). Differential incorporation has been conceptualized as a two-way process. One process relates to the internal characteristics of the racial minority group in terms of its strengths and weaknesses, both economically and politically, and its cultural values. The other process involves external forces imposed on the minority group by the white majority despite the socioeconomic status of the minority (Gordon, 1964, p. 8; Lieberson, 1980). Racial discrimination is a major form of these external forces. Place Stratification Model A second model which describes the relationship between the white majority and racial minorities is referred to as place stratification. Place stratification for racial minorities implies that racial inequality is an integral part of the social structure reflected by the unequal spatial distribution of minority groups and their residential segregation from the white majority (Logan, Alba & Leung, 1996). The place stratification model further suggests that differential characteristics of neighborhoods are associated with the uneven distribution of minority groups (Darden & Kamel, 2000; Freeman, 2000). Spatial Data, Techniques, Software The ideology and models described above are tested using census data on population and housing characteristics. The universe consists of metropolitan areas. The smallest unit of analysis employed is the census tract which represents the neighborhood. The techniques used include a variety of indexes. Among those most frequently used are the index of dissimilarity (Duncan & Duncan, 1955), the isolation index (Lieberson, 1981), and the Gini index (Darden & Tabachneck, 1980). A socioeconomic index has also been used (Darden & Kamel, 1999). The use of software to map the data and determine the extent of unevenness in the spatial distribution of racial groups has been limited. To date, Map Info has been used most frequently. All of the indexes and Map Info have worked well for my research. My preference, however, is the index of dissimilarity. There are shortcomings to using the indexes. All of the indexes are influenced by the size of the spatial units used (e.g., census tracts, wards, enumeration areas, blocks). This makes comparative research of residential segregation between countries more difficult. For example, how does one interpret the level of residential segregation of blacks in Britain at the ward level (Peach, 1996) with blacks in the United States at the tract level? In other words, the spatial units are not standardized. Some Best Practice Examples I prefer not to list these at this time, but will be willing to discuss such examples at the meeting. References Breton, R., et al. (1990). Ethnic identity and equality: Varieties of experience in a Canadian city. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Darden, J. T. (2000). Race relations in the city. In R. Paddison (Ed.) Handbook of urban studies (Chap. 13). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Darden, J. T. & Kamel, S. (1999, Summer). Spatial and socioeconomic analysis of Arab/West Asians and Jews in the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area. The Arab World Geographer, 2(2), 149-173. Darden, J. T. & Kamel, S. (2000). Black residential segregation in the city and suburbs of Detroit: Does socioeconomic status matter? Journal of Urban Affairs, 22(1), 1-13. Darden, J. T. & Tabachneck, A. (1980). Algorithm 8: Graphic and mathematical descriptions of inequality, dissimilarity, segregation, or concentration. Environment and Planning A, 12, 227-234. Duncan, O. & Duncan, B. (1955, April). Methodological analysis of segregation indexes. American Sociological Review, 20, 210-217. Freeman, L. (2000). Minority housing segregation: A test of the three perspectives. Journal of Urban Affairs, 22(1), 15-35. Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion and national origins. New York: Oxford University Press. Henry, F. (1994). The Caribbean diaspora in Toronto: Learning to live with racism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Lieberson, S. (1980). A piece of the pie: Black and white immigrants since 1880. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lieberson, S. (1981). An asymmetrical approach to segregation. In C. Peach, V. Robinson, & S. Smith (Eds.) Ethnic segregation in cities (61-82). London: Crom Helm Logan, J., Alba., R., & Leung, S. (1996). Minority access to white suburbs: A multiregional comparison. Social Forces, 74(3), 851-881. Peach, C. (1996). Does Britain have ghettos? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 21(1), 216-235. Reeves, F. (1983). British racial discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rose, E. J. B. & Associates. (1969). Colour and citizenship. London: Oxford University Press.
[TOP]