| Abstract: | ![]()
US theoretical models of assimilation of ethnic groups within a larger culture usually assume a unilinear, unidimensional process, which is simplistic, does not account for the persistence of ethnicity, and oversimplifies the process of social change. The argument is advanced that ethnic identity is both primordial and situational (a private sense that is self-maintaining, cumulative, deepening, and self-affirming). Typically, a person has one primary ethnic identity, but where ethnic boundaries overlap, there is instrumental identity. Chinese in Thailand mostly adopt Thai values, speak the Thai language, go to Thai schools, join Thai associations, and celebrate Thai religious festivals. Their secondary identity as Chinese is integrated into their associations with other Chinese and in the home through the use of the Chinese language. Their Chinese identity appears also in ancestor worship. There are symbiotic relationships between native Thais and Chinese Thais along class lines. The Chinese are known to have great financial and economic resources, while the Thais have political and administrative control. These differences with the power elites separate the Chinese from the Thais and interfere with assimilation. The power is balanced. If the Chinese gained in political and administrative power, the balance would be upset, and the interests of both groups would be threatened. The view of Whitten and Whitten acknowledges that individuals and groups act to make the best of the situation and are not merely victims of social forces. Actions are maintained and resisted. The important consideration in theory-building is not the terms of assimilation but the terms specifying the conduct of the group as a whole and as individuals in daily social interactions. The theoretical discussion focuses on border crossings, the Skinner view of the Chinese, bilingualism and cultural education, socioeconomic organizations, occupational differences, and religion, tradition, and ethnic identification. |
