precedes the other. The distinction between voluntary and involuntary segregation also reveals that the sorting process is not always governed by maximizing preferences within constraints. People may choose certain neighborhoods despite having the resources to make other choices.
In short, segregation is among the most important social problems because of its relevance to stratification and inequality in the broader society. It is related to stratification in society because it is shaped in part by exclusionary behaviors of groups with more economic, social, and political power over marginalized groups. These patterns of segregation are considered involuntary, and groups who are marginalized and isolated by these practices often have lower well-being and fewer life chances.
Segregation and Boundaries
Over the past few decades, newer explanations for residential segregation have been offered to complement and extend older ones. The classic human ecology view is that the uneven distribution of resources in space is the result of competition among groups. Some groups have more resources to secure locations associated with better resources. Alba and Logan (1991) suggested that it is not just a matter of which groups are more resourceful, but that some groups are more capable of converting their socioeconomic resources into more favorable locations. These observations explain how groups are segregated in space with different resources, but they do not explain why resources are distributed unevenly in space. Lefebvre (1991 [1974]) argued that urban patterns reflect different modes of production. For example, in cities where the manufacturing industry provides employment for residents, low-income neighborhoods with inexpensive housing are usually located close to factories as a result of factory workers trying to reduce their travel cost to work. The current state of the economy and capital actively shapes space for its exchange value, because space is increasingly lucrative. That is why many treat purchasing a house as an investment. To achieve a location with higher exchange value, some neighborhoods with better physical and social amenities have to be appropriated (Molotch 1993).
Another recent body of research seeks to conceptualize the different boundaries that create and maintain segregation. In Chapter 1, we described segregation based on the extent of physical and social distance between groups. Groups living in separate neighborhoods are segregated through physical distance. Being segregated through physical distance usually implies there is also social distance because physical distance constrains opportunities for social interaction. Most conventional research into residential segregation focuses on situations where groups live in separate neighborhoods (i.e. physical and social distance). However, scholars are increasingly studying segregation where there is social distance despite physical closeness between groups. This kind of segregation is created and maintained through a variety of boundaries and processes of exclusion.
How can we conceive of the boundaries of segregation? Alexander (1988) offered one approach by conceiving boundaries as consciously and unconsciously drawn in both the internal (“soft”) and external (“hard”) environments. Hard boundaries are relatively objective and measurable components of the external environment, such as the physical and social structures that make someone distinctive or locate where they spend time and with whom. These boundaries tend to distinguish status groups and prevent resource sharing. For example, a hard boundary may be a rigid physical divide (e.g. a gate separating rich and poor communities), an embodied (physical) difference (e.g. tattoos, religious insignia), or a social structural division with deep historical roots (e.g. racially segmented labor markets) (see Table 2.1). Hard boundaries in place today are likely to have been built up over time, engrained through pervasive socialization, reproduced in daily routines, and visible through clear signposts (e.g. manifested in spatial, temporal, and ecological patterns, organizational affiliations, explicit contracts, legal restrictions, and physical embodiments). For example, social media are considered to have hard boundaries because only those who are registered and/or approved can participate in their activities. Communication occurs only within the networks of registered participants.
Table 2.1 Segregation and boundaries
| Physical segregation | Social segregation | |
| Soft boundaries | Ethnic neighborhood | Friendship pattern |
| Hard boundaries | Gated communities, racially segmented labor market | Social media (e.g. WhatsApp groups) |
Soft boundaries are cultural, symbolic, and personal. They are less observable than hard boundaries because they are drawn within people’s minds. Soft boundaries include individual and collective representations, classifications, attitudes, and personae, including stereotypes, scripts, and schemas that guide actors in their daily interactions and responses to routine situations. Soft boundaries are often rooted in exposure to different processes of socialization and social control. Based on past experience, groups assign their own valuations to objects, people, practices, and settings. Soft boundaries are subjective, contingent, and interpretative (Alexander 1988), emerge situationally, and do not interpenetrate across levels and systems (Parsons 1951). In sum, distinguishing various boundaries of segregation offers a useful way to theorize segregation, and offers new opportunities for empirical research.
Consequences of Segregation
Opportunity and inequality are organized across space and territory. Galster and Sharkey (2017) showed that opportunities vary by geography and scale, from neighborhood to city to region. These opportunities include economic benefits, social networks, and social support. In addition to shaping economic and social opportunities, segregation affects the physical and psychological well-being of individuals. This is because each neighborhood has risks and protections related to the quality of the physical and social environment, which in turn are often based on the socioeconomic profile of the community. Physical amenities are determined by the investments of residents and the services provided by the local government. The social environment is defined by the behavior of the residents of the neighborhood. The quality of these neighborhood factors is related to the physical and psychological well-being of residents.
The extent of ethno-racial segregation varies by society. Some societies, such as Japan, maintain ethno-racial and cultural homogeneity, making it difficult for other ethnic members to be integrated (Takenaka, Nakamuro, and Ishida 2016). Western multicultural societies such as the United States and Canada have relied on many distinct ethno-racial groups immigrating or being forcibly brought into the country, as happened with the slave trade. The potential for social instability in these societies is high if groups cannot achieve meaningful social integration over time. In hope of reducing segregation, multicultural societies discourage homophily and encourage social integration between groups in hope of reducing segregation. Segregation in these societies has widely come to be seen as undesirable, especially the long-term segregation of disadvantaged minorities. However, efforts to reduce segregation have been slow and achieved mixed success, which is a topic that will be discussed in the following chapters.
Changing views about segregation as well as lessons learned about the ill effects of concentrated disadvantage from black–white “hypersegregation” in the United States have led to efforts to reduce racial segregation (a topic we will be discussing in Chapter 4). For example, urban planning and public housing practices that exacerbated racial segregation in the mid-twentieth-century projects have been replaced with newer models that explicitly encourage mixed-race and mixed-income communities. The 1950s–60s Civil Rights Movement
