The Ghetto—A Re-Evaluation

HE republication of The Ghetto by Louis Wirth' seems to be an appropriate occasion for a re-evaluation2 of his thesis. It is of importance to state at the very beginning of this discussion that, although some concepts and conclusions of Wirth will be sharply criticized, in general this is one of the most important studies of the sociology of the Jews, a much neglected field.' Wirth's study presents a theory as well as considerable evidence which disproves it. The theory applied in The Ghetto is Park's model of a natural history of race and ethnic relations. The pattern of interaction among different ethnic groups passes through the stages of isolation, competition, conflict, and accommodation. Eventually the last stage is reached, at which minority groups become completely assimilated. This scheme can be criticized from several points of view. First, like many theories of natural history, it is not sufficiently specified to be tested.4 It is formulated in such a manner that different and even contradictory data can be interpreted to support the theory. The term "eventually," often used by Park,5 is a good indicator of this fallacy. When an ethnic group is assimilating, it is suggested that the hypothesis is supported; if an ethnic group is not assimilating, it is suggested that it has not yet reached the stage of assimilation. "Eventually," one can still hold, every ethnic group will be assimilated. As no time interval is mentioned and the sociological conditions under which the process of assimilation will take place are not spelled out, the whole scheme becomes unscientific. It is necessary to distinguish carefully between the description of the stages and the processes which take place at each stage on the one hand, and the analysis of the forces which cause the processes to proceed from stage to stage on the other. This is especially important in understanding Park and Wirth, for their natural history is not presented as a continuous process but assumes that there is a limited number of stages at which intergroup relations can reach an equilibrium. In case no accumulation of changing forces occurs, the system will not move to the next stage. The factor of change which transfers groups from the first to the second stage is the diffusion of civilization which brings hereto isolated societies into contact. Whether one accepts this proposition or not is irrelevant. The point is that onae is confronted with a clear hypothesis concerning the nature of the factors of change. The forces further changing the pattern of interaction are much less clear. According to the theory, contact although it first causes competition and conflict, eventually creates a division of labor and modts vivendi among the groups. Open conflict ceases, and a relationship based on cooperation in some spheres and on segregation in others is established. But here the theory runs into difficulties. It is clear that under some conditions this process does not take place, while under others it does. What are these conditions? Park and Wirth seem to have no systematic hypothesis on this point. This criticism applies even more strongly to the last step, the transition from accommodation to ILouis Wirth, Thle Ghetto (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928; republished in 1956 in paper back edition). 2For earlier evaluations see R. D. McKenzie, The American Journal of Sociology, XXXV, p. 487; The American Historical Review, 34: 695 (April 1929); Herbert Blumer, foreword to Louis Wirth, Community Life and Social Policy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956). 3 Seymour M. Lipset, "Changing Social Status and Prejudice," Commentary (May 1950), p. 478. See also S. M. Lipset, "Jewish Sociologists and the Sociology of the Jews," Jewish Social Studies, XVII, (1955), p. 177. 4This fallacy is discussed by Kingsley Davis in "Malthus and the Theory of Population," in The Language of Social Research, Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Morris Rosenberg (eds.), (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1955). 5 Park's theory has to be discussed since this is the theory applied by Wirth. See Robert E. Park, Race and Culture (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1950), esp. p. 104. On the relation of Wirth to Park see Reinhard Bendix, "Social Theory and Social Action in the Sociology of Louis Wirth," The American Journal of Sociology, LIX (May 1954), pp. 523-529.