finally arrived.
The study of residential segregation can be divided into work that describes and work that explains the causes of residential segregation. This book will cover both. Descriptive work uses various measures to convey the extent of segregation and describe how it is patterned in urban space. These measures may be indices of segregation that seek to take a lot of data about where groups live and summarize it into a single number. Descriptive approaches may also include visual depictions of segregation patterns using color-coded maps, a powerful tool for conveying the patterning of groups. In this book, we will review different descriptive measures of segregation. Descriptive “facts” about residential segregation are important in and of themselves for gauging potential problems of inequality and stratification. Descriptive measures are also essential for the explanation of segregation, because they provide the context through which we can generate and test hypotheses about its causes.
What factors explain observed patterns of residential segregation? Chapter 2 lays out a variety of answers to this question, providing a typology of social forces ranging from macro to micro. For now, let us limit ourselves by saying that one of simplest and most important factors is whether individuals sought to be segregated or not. Distinguishing whether residential segregation is voluntary or involuntary is one of the simplest ways to explain it (but difficult to measure). Some groups, new immigrants in particular, cluster in specific areas by choice. They maintain relationships and social interactions largely within their own groups. In other words, they are socially segregated. In Canada, Richmond in the Greater Vancouver Area and Richmond Hill in the Greater Toronto Area have high concentrations of Chinese. There you will see neon signs in Chinese characters displayed on storefronts for many blocks. Community malls with shops and restaurants are full of Chinese consumers enjoying social gatherings and cultural activities. In central Los Angeles, Korean immigrants concentrate in Koreatown. These communities have many ethnic churches. Residents of these communities are largely immigrants, who stay together for social support and maintain strong social boundaries between themselves and others.
Although these groups can choose to maintain a high level of interaction within their boundaries, they are sometimes socially segregated from other groups involuntarily. For example, it has been documented that there is a high level of occupational segregation in employment opportunities and exclusion from better jobs for Hispanic and Asian men. Some groups have almost no representation in senior management or supervisory positions. These patterns of involuntary segregation have been found in a variety of places, ranging from Canada to Spain to Hong Kong. Friendships in neighborhoods, schools, and workplaces tend to develop along racial or class lines.
These observations lead us to ask a series of questions: What are the current patterns of residential and social segregation in the United States and other countries? Have the levels of residential and social segregation increased, decreased, or remained the same over the last few decades? What is the relationship between residential segregation and social segregation? Why do we find residential and social segregation among different social groups in almost every city? These questions are not simply asking, “Is there segregation?” but, “How much segregation is there in the city, and why?” More importantly, “Why do we need to be concerned about segregation?” To answer these and other questions, we first need to investigate some fundamental issues: What is segregation? Why are people segregated? What are the consequences of segregation? These are the key questions that will be addressed in this book.
Segregation in History
Residential segregation is not a unique phenomenon in contemporary society. It has a very long history in human civilization, likely pre-dating the written record. Van der Spek (2009) indicated that ethnic segregation can be dated back to Hellenistic Babylon, while Cowgill (1997) even documented residential segregation in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, circa 100 BC. Jewish quarters emerged in many European cities centuries ago, such as the Venetian Ghetto in Venice, Italy, in the early 1500s. The Jewish quarter in Córdoba, Spain, which is visited by many tourists today, dates back even further, to the Middle Ages.
In Asia, as described by Elliott (2001), the Manchurians lived in residential self-segregation after they conquered the Ming Dynasty and ruled China from 1600 to the early 1900s. Their segregation became less strictly enforced as the ruling authority of the Qing Dynasty gradually weakened. Christopher (1992) used census data to document that, in the colonies of the British Empire in the last century and before, there was strict segregation of British residents from others, maintained through both formal and informal social control. This segregation was not only by race and economic status, but also by religious affiliation and ethnicity (e.g. Protestant English vs. Catholic Irish vs. Catholic Italian). As early as 1901, the level of racial residential segregation in most of the major cities in the British Empire was over 60 out of 100, as measured by the dissimilarity index of residential segregation. This level is considered very high by contemporary standards. In some colonies, such as Hong Kong, local residents were banned from residing in certain areas in the beginning of the last century. For example, the Peak in Hong Kong island was reserved for Europeans, despite their small number in the early 1900s (Christopher 1992). Similarly, racial residential segregation was legalized in towns of British Africa. Christopher suggested that a high level of racial residential segregation reflects the small size of the colonizer group and their cultural preference. Lewis and Harris (2013) researched the history of segregation in Bombay and found a high level of residential segregation between European and local residents in the colonial period before the 1950s. During the Japanese colonial rule of Taiwan, the area of Seimon-cho (modern name Ximending) was developed for new Japanese immigrants. This extensive body of scholarship makes it clear that residential segregation has persisted for centuries, mainly because colonizers prefer staying among themselves for reasons of safety and cultural identity. Residential segregation also reflects own-group preference, prejudice against other groups, and affinity for familiar culture and social practices.
In North America, a plethora of studies have documented residential segregation of blacks. In the United States, the Great Migration of African Americans from the South to the North has transformed racial residential patterns in major cities. Segregation drastically increased from the 1950s to the 1970s. Some suggested that the increase largely reflected the increase in population of African Americans (Lieberson 1981). Some also argued the increase was a result of government policies, such as a policy known as “redlining” (i.e. the government graded neighborhoods into four categories: neighborhoods in which a majority of their residents were racial minorities were marked in red, implying that people living there were high-risk mortgage lenders) (Rothstein 2017), and practices of real estate intuitions, such as “blockbusting” or steering potential buyers (Massey and Denton 1993). In Canada, the black population increased during the American Revolution as the British promised freedom and settlement for “slaves” who fought on the British side. However, after arriving in Canada, most blacks were granted parcels of land located in remote rural areas, especially Nova Scotia. Thus, black segregation has been documented there since the eighteenth century (Fong 1996).
Just as residential segregation has accompanied the development of cities since their birth, social segregation among groups has also been common in human history. As civilizations became more complex due to greater surplus being generated from control over the environment, status hierarchies expanded, and formal and informal forms of segregation became common. For example, during the Middle Ages, there was limited daily interaction among members of the royal and noble classes and the peasant class, let alone social mobility across these classes. For centuries, the caste system in India allowed only endogamy, which is the custom of marrying only within the limits of a local community, clan, or tribe (Olcott 1944). In China, the aristocratic class in most dynasties maintained a clear group boundary. In Japan, the burakumin, an “untouchable” class at the bottom of the social hierarchy, have experienced social isolation for generations. Religious groups sometimes retain their own identity and practices by means of voluntary social segregation. Since medieval times, monks and nuns have stayed in monasteries and convents to maintain social separation
