Immigrants and Ethnics: Conflict and Identity in Chicago Polonia Author(S): Mary Patrice Erdmans Source: the Sociological Quarterly, Vol

Home , Culture of Poland, Polish Americans

Immigrants and Ethnics: Conflict and Identity in Chicago Polonia Author(s): Mary Patrice Erdmans Source: The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Winter, 1995), pp. 175-195 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Midwest Sociological Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4121283 . Accessed: 25/04/2011 15:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Blackwell Publishing and Midwest Sociological Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Sociological Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org IMMIGRANTSAND ETHNICS: Conflict and Identity in Chicago Polonia

Mary Patrice Erdmans* University of North Carolina,Greensboro

Immigrationis bothan historicaland contemporary phenomenon in the UnitedStates. As a result,various ancestral generations coexist. For example,third generation Polish Ameri- can ethnicsshare social space with recentPolish immigrantsin Chicago. While common ancestryleads immigrantsand ethnicsto thinkthey ought to work together,dissimilarities betweenthe groupslead to conflict. Two sourcesof conflictare identified.First, disparate culturalidentities emerge because immigrant culture is embeddedin the homeland,while ethnic cultureis constructedover generationsin the contextof the host country. Second, immigrantsand ethnics have different needs: the newcomersneed to learnthe cultureof the host society, the establishedethnics need to maintainan attachmentto the cultureof the home country. The findingssuggest that ancestry does not always functionas a basis for solidaritybetween immigrant and ethnic populations.

After the annual Polish American parade in Chicago in 1988, a group of new Polish immigrants marched to the Polish consulate to demonstrate. Along the way, one immigrant told me about the problems she was having with "old Poles," that is, the established Polish American community. Among other things, she felt that Polish Americans were unwilling to help the new immigrants and provided as an example her attempt to enroll her children in a private grade school:

[WhenI arrivedat the Catholicschool] I see thatthe principal'sname is Polish. I think,I am lucky, she will understand.I ask her if she is speakingPolish and she says she is. This is very good for me. I thinkthere is no problem. So then I explainhow my husbandis looking for a job and when he finds a job then we will pay tuition. Then I ask: "It is possibleto enrollmy children?"She got very angryand started yelling at me: "Youcan get a job anywhere,don't you wantto work?You arehere 6 monthsand you don'thave a job!! When my motherand fathercame here they workedimmediately. My fatherswept the streetsand my mothercleaned tables." I said to her, "Yourparents were peasants.We are not." She got very angryat me and I left and neversaw her again. I enrolledmy children in a magnetschool.

The new immigrant identifies with the principal because they share a language and a label ("she is Polish"), but they are unable to form an allegiance based on these shared traits. In their interaction, the ethnic principal and the immigrant parent try to explain why the cultural

*Directall correspondenceto MaryPatrice Erdmans, Department of Sociology,337 GrahamBuilding, University of NorthCarolina, Greensboro,NC 27412-5001.

The SociologicalQuarterly, Volume 36, Number 1, pages 175-195. Copyright ? 1995 by The Midwest SociologicalSociety. All rights of reproductionin any form requested. ISSN: 0038-0253. 176 THESOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 36/No. 1/1995 identitydoes not work. The ethnicblames it on the workethic of the immigrantwho arrived from a communistcountry; the immigrantblames it on the ruralroots of the ethnic's ances- tors. This articlewill explain why this conflictoccurs in ChicagoPolonia by describingthe differentcontexts and processesthat shape immigrantand ethnic identities. In the United States,ethnic identitiesare createdand recreatedin two ways: throughtime, as second and subsequentgenerations reinterpret their collective identityin specifichistorical contexts(Sollors 1989; Glazer 1990;Conzen, Gerber, Morawska, Pozzetta, and Vecoli 1990; Kivisto 1990; Nagel 1994), and across space, as immigrantscarry culture from one place to another(Thomas and Znaniecki1918-1920; Bodnar 1985; Portesand Bach 1985; Morawska 1985). New immigrantsmay settle near establishedethnics from their homeland,but their incorporationinto this communityis by no means certainbecause their identitiesare con- structedin differentcultural contexts and through different processes. First,if severaldecades separatethe early and later arrivals,homeland and destinationconditions are not likely to be similar. The immigrantsand ethnics then only superficiallyshare an ancestralhomeland. Second, the re-creationof ethnicityover generationsproduces a differentidentity than the constructionof an immigrantidentity through movement across borders.

DISTINGUISHINGIMMIGRANTS AND ETHNICS

Ethnicidentities in the UnitedStates and Canadatypically evolved in immigrantcommunities and, for this reason,scholars often use the termsethnic and immigrantinterchangeably. For example, HerbertGans (1979) refers to immigrantsas "first generationethnics." Susan Olzak's (1986) competitiontheory of "ethnic"collective action is based on propositionsde- rived from the study of immigrantpopulations and rates of immigration;Raymond Breton's (1964) researchon institutionalcompleteness does not distinguishimmigrant communities from ethnic communities. More recently,the theoreticaltools "ethniceconomies" (Model 1992) and "ethnicenclaves" (Sanders and Nee 1987) areused to explainimmigrant patterns of incorporation. Despite this misuseof the termsas synonyms,many sociologists today do recognizeimmi- grantsand ethnics as separatesocial categories(Pedraza-Bailey 1990). Differencesbetween immigrantsand ethnics are implicitlyrecognized in sociological models that describe how immigrantsbecome ethnic Americans(Novak 1971; Greene 1975; Sarna 1978; Gans 1979; Waters 1990). These models, however,were not intendedto distinguishsystematically between immigrantsand ethnics. The trendin manyother studies, rather than comparing immigrantsand ethnics,has been to focus on one groupor the other,depending on the composition of the populationin the United States. The early "ChicagoSchool" studies of immigrants (e.g., Thomasand Znaniecki1918-1920; Park and Miller 1921) appearedat a time when 30 percentof the city's populationwas foreign-born("People" 1976). When immigrationfrom Europewas interruptedby the FirstWorld War and then slowed to a tricklewith the passage of the NationalOrigins Act in 1924, interestin immigrantsgave way to interestin new generations of native-bornethnics. Then,by mid-century,scholarly interest focused on explaining these and subsequentgenerations of ethnics and their relationsor place in America(Gans 1962; Gordon1964; Glazerand Moynihan1970; Novak 1971). With the post-1965influx of the "newimmigrants" from Asia and LatinAmerica, there has been a resurgenceof immigration studies(e.g., the workof AlejandroPortes and colleagues; Pedraza-Bailey 1985; Massey, Alarcon,Durand, and Gonzales 1987; Hein 1991a;Hein 1991b). In a parallelresearch stream, sociologistshave continuedto examinethe persistenceand meaningof ethnicityin the United Immigrantsand Ethnics 177

States (Gans 1979; Hirschman1983; Liebersonand Waters1988; Alba 1990; Waters1990). Withinthese two separateresearch veins, sociologistshave exploredthe social categoriesof immigrantand ethnic. Ethnicidentity is currentlybeing examinedfrom a social constructionistperspective (Sol- lors 1986; Sollors 1989; Conzen et al. 1990; Waters 1994; Nagel 1994). This perspective conceptualizesculture as "thesocially producedstructures of meaning"(Conzen 1991, p. 12), and ethnicityas emergingthrough interactions. Ethnicity is shapedboth by agency and struc- ture. To be a memberof an ethnic groupthe individualmust, at minimum,choose to be a member(Patterson 1975; Yancey, Eriksen,and Juliano 1976). Of course, ethnic identityis more voluntaryfor the white ethnic in the United States than the nonwhiteethnic (Waters 1990). Involuntaryprocesses shaping ethnic identity include immigrationlaws (Pedraza 1994), state resources(Nagel 1986;Nagel 1994), discriminatorypractices (Padilla 1985), and labor markets(Bonacich 1972). Ethnicidentity emerges from the initialinteraction between the immigranthomeland culture and Americansociety and laterinteractions between the ethnic subcultureand the dominantsociety. These interactionsare influencedby the receptivity of the host country,the "foreignness"of the new arrivals,the size and rate of immigration flows, the economic and political context of the home and host countries,and international relations. For example,the identityof JewishAmericans was shapedby the incipientstage of U.S. industrializationin the late 1800s, the anti-immigrationmood of the 1920s,the Christian majorityand decadesof widespreadanti-Semitism, the creationof a Jewish nation-state,and the Arab-Israeliwar of 1967 (Glazer 1990). The conceptof ethnicityas a constructedidentity illuminates the differencesbetween new immigrantsand establishedethnics. Low ratesof immigrationbetween the 1920s and 1960s allowed many ethnic groupsto maturewithout close ties to the homelandculture, and there were times when those ties were dangerousto maintain(e.g., WWII,the McCarthyera). This time gap betweenthe early immigrants(who have now become ethnics)and the new immi- grantshas resultedin disparatecultural identities of the two groups. The ethnic culturein- ventedby thirdgeneration ethnics bears little resemblanceto the concurrenthomeland culture of new immigrants.Moreover, while the passage of time, as expressedin generations,is a main factorin the productionof the ethnicidentity, it is the crossingof bordersthat constructs the immigrantidentity. Silvia Pedraza-Baileynotes that whatmakes the immigranta distinct social categoryis that "the immigrants'preparation for adultroles in society takes place in theircountry of origin,although they will live these roles ... in the new society to whichthey have migrated"(1990, p. 48). The comparisonof immigrantsand ethnics is particularlyrelevant today as immigrants establishcooperative involvements with establishedethnics. Since 1965 we have once again become an immigrant-receivingnation, ending the four decades of an (almost)closed door policy towardimmigrants (Massey 1994). Immigrantsarriving today share social space,insti- tutions,and even stereotypeswith establishedethnics. Israeliimmigrants lobby the same U.S. Congressas Jewish Americans. Polish immigrantssupport the same buddingdemocracy in Polandas Polish Americans.Mexican immigrants compete with Chicanosfor minorityschol- arships. Black Caribbeanimmigrants are subjectto the same racismas AfricanAmericans. Sociologists have begun to compareimmigrant groups and native-bornracial minorities (Hein 1991a; Pfeffer 1994), and immigrantsand ethnics who share an ancestralhomeland (Portes, McLeod and Parker1978; Luciuk 1986; Shokeid 1988; Hurtado,Gurin, and Peng 1994). This articlecontributes to this collectionof studiesby describingthe differencesbe- 178 THE SOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY Vol. 36/No. 1/1995 tween new Polish immigrantsand established Polish Americans in orderto explainconflict in Chicago's Polonia (Poloniais the term for the Polish communityabroad) in the 1980s. This article describestwo sources of immigrant-ethnicconflict. The first is the cultural differencesbetween the generations.The PolishAmerican ethnics and new Polish immigrants have fundamentallydifferent interpretations of theiridentities as Poles. The secondis a result of the differencesbetween the social categoriesof immigrantand ethnic whichstem from the fact thatthe immigrantis a newcomerand the ethnicis an establishedmember of society. As a result,the immigrantand ethnic have differentand incompatible needs and goals. While the immigranttries to learnthe cultureof the host country,the ethnicworks to maintainan attachment to the ancestralculture.

A CASE STUDYOF COMMUNITYCONFLICT Data for this studywere collectedfrom severalsources. FromJanuary 1987 to March1990, I attendedpublic festivals, organizationalmeetings, private parties, political rallies, and religious events as a participantobserver. In addition,I conductedfifty-four formal interviews with Polonianleaders, including Polish Americans,post-World War II refugees, and recent immigrants.I also collected informationfrom newspapersand organizationalpublications, and I conducteda surveyof businessesin the immigrantcommunity in Chicago(for a fuller descriptionof my methods,see note 4 and Erdmans1992, AppendixA). In this study, ethnics are definedas native-bornAmericans of Polish heritageand immigrantsare foreign-bornPoles. In these terms,American Polonia is mostly an ethnic population. In the 1980 U.S. census, 95 percentof the over eight millionpeople who reportedsome Polish ancestrywere native-born.In the 1980s, the foreign-bornmembers of Polonia were composedof two migrantcohorts: the post-WWIIcohort (roughly 190,000) and the post-1965 cohort. Since 1965, over 100,000"quota" immigrants, 45,000 refugees,and 770,000 "tempo- rary visitors for pleasure"'were admittedinto the U.S. from Poland(Table 1).

Table 1 * The New Polish Cohortby Timeof Arrivaland Status

Immigrant' Wakacjuszeb Refugee

1965-1979 59,399 293,324 7,924 1980-1991 42,940 479,568 37,359 TOTALS 102,339 772,892 45,283

Source: Annual Reports of the Immigration and NaturalizationService, 1965-1978. Statistical Yearbook for Immigration and NaturalizationService, 1979-1991. Column 1: Immigrantsadmitted by selected class of admission and region and selected country of birth. Column 2: Nonimmigrantsadmitted by class of admission and region and select country of citizenship. Column 3: Refugee arrivals in the United States by selected nationalities. Notes: a. This refers to immigrantsadmitted under numericallimitations. b. The term means "vacationer"and refers to nonimmigrantswho entered as "temporaryvisitors for pleasure."

Chicago was a primarycity of destinationfor the early Polish immigrantsand, by WWI, had the largest concentrationof Poles living outside Poland. On the 1980 census, some 892,000 people residingin Illinoisclaimed Polish ancestry,and 64,224 of these were foreign- bornPoles (Kromkowski1990, p. 25). Chicagocontinues to attractnew immigrants.In 1987, 24 percentof all new Polish immigrantslisted Chicago as their intendedcity of residency Immigrants and Ethnics 179

(StatisticalYearbook of the Immigrationand NaturalizationServices 1987, p. 65). Because Chicagoattracted both the earlierand most recentimmigrants, the city is an ideal settingfor the study of the relationsbetween immigrants and ethnics. In Chicago'sPolonia, Pole (immigrant)and Polish American(ethnic) are meaningfulcate- gories. Polish immigrantsidentify themselves and are identifiedby Polish Americansas being distinctfrom the ethnics. The differenceis conveyedby the phrases"new Pole" and "old Pole" or nowy Polonia (new Polonia) and stary Polonia (old Polonia). Membersof each group understandthat there is a differencebetween the groups,even thoughthey do not always agreeon whatthat difference is. At the sametime, immigrantand ethnic Poles acknowl- edge a common history. Both would point to sixteenth-centuryKopernikus, seventeenth- centurySobieski, eighteenth-century Kosciuszko, nineteenth-century Mickiewicz, and twentieth-centuryPilsudski with pride. Many believe that this historicalbond and sharedidentity should translateinto present-dayalliances and cooperation.The differencesbetween immigrantsand ethnics,however, discourage cooperative efforts.

IMMIGRANTAND ETHNICCULTURES IN CHICAGO'S POLONIA

Differencesbetween immigrantsand ethnics are expressedin each group's languages,religious rituals,and politicalbeliefs. The dramaticchanges in Polandover the last one hundred years-Poland was a partitionednation until 1918, an independentnation between the world wars, and a communistsatellite country between 1945 and 1989-have led to differenttypes of immigrants.Peasant transoceanic migrant laborers, war refugees, and anticommunist exiles constitutedthe threemain immigrantcohorts in the early twentiethcentury, post-WWII, and post-1965 respectively. The early cohortemigrated from a Polandthat did not exist on the map;it was partitioned into regionscontrolled by Russia,Prussia, and Austria. Therefore, national consciousness was very low among the early immigrants.The decision to emigratewas usuallyeconomic and connectedto the diminishingavailability of land and an increasingsurplus of labor. As a result,this cohortwas composedmostly of uneducatedpeasants. The post-WWIIcohort, by contrast,left an independentPoland (1919-1939) and had a stronglydeveloped national consciousness. Manyof these 6migr6shad foughtin WWII,and theirdecision to emigrate(or not to returnto Polandafter the war) was a politicaldecision. These Poles arrivedas refugeesin America,not as economic immigrants.Conflict in Poloniain the 1950s was a result of the differencesin nationalidentity and socioeconomic class betweenthe earlycohort and the post- WWIIcohort (Blejwas 1981).2 The most recentcohort emigrated from a communistPoland for both economic and political reasons. Some, discouragedby the failing economy of communistPoland, came to Americaseeking financialgain. Others,especially the refugeeswho hadbeen involvedin the Solidamo5d movement,were escapingpolitical repression. These refugees,who came mostly in the 1980s, had a strong commitmentto their nationalidentity, and in Americathey re- mainedactively involvedin the politicaland social changesin Polandin the 1980s (Erdmans 1994). Also includedin this newestcohort were the wakacjusze,Poles in Americaon tempo- rarytourist visas workingillegally. In general,the political,economic, and geographicfaces of Polandchanged throughout the twentiethcentury, and thereforethe compositionof the cohortsdiffered. Table 2 summarizes these differences.Today's descendantsof the early immigrantsare generallyworking-class ethnics who have an emotionalattachment to the folk cultureof Polandas presentedto them 180 THE SOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY Vol. 36/No. 1/1995

Table 2 * DifferencesAmong Polish Immigrant Cohorts

Early Cohort War Cohort New Cohort (1870-1913) (1939-1959) (1965-1989)

Poland'spolitical state Partitioned Independent Communist Mainmotives for emigrating Economic Political Economic/Political Cohorteducational level' Low High High Cohortsize Large Small Small (1,500,000) (190,000) (350,000)

Source: Erdmans(1992). Notes: Lowlevels of educationrefer to less thanhigh school education-many of theearly immigrants were illiterate, and few had attendedschool beyond the eighth grade; high levels of educationrefer to highschool diploma and beyond; between a third anda half of the two latestcohorts had post-secondary degrees (Erdmans, 1994, p. 80).

by their parentsand grandparents.The post-WWIIcohort and the most recent immigrant cohortare bettereducated and more urbanized than the earliercohort and, hence, identifywith the intellectualcomponents of an evolving Polish nationand culture(Blejwas 1981; Erdmans 1992; Lopata 1994). The differentmeanings of Polishnessare, at times, a consequenceof class differences.Some express it as a preferencefor Chopinversus the polka. New immi- grantsdescribe it as "not having anythingin common"with the "earlypeasants" who were "mostlyuneducated laborers" who "signedtheir name with an X." Historicalevents, such as WWII,industrialization, and the impositionof a communistsystem, have changednot only Poland'spolitical and economic systems,but its cultureas well. ThusPolish Americans and Polish immigrants have differenthistorical memories and different culturalexpressions. Immigrantshave statedthat: "There are differencesin language,in the way of thinking,in rememberingabout Poland, our experiencesin Poland,experiences with Germans,with Russians. We have only a few common topics because we have had such differentexperiences." Moreover,they add: "We have differentvalues. We came from a differentcountry. Before, it was farmland,now it's industry. We cannoteven talk to them. Everyonehere is having polka parties. In Polandno one polkas." Immigrantsthink Polish ethnics are maroonedin the past. One immigrantcomplained about a Polish Americanorganization that was sponsoringa new edition of a nineteenth- centurynovel: "It's really stupid. It would be comparedto somethinglike a novel aboutthe wild west. It was great when I was 14, but they considerthis a great novel. OK, at some point in Polish historyit was an importantbook, but not right now. We have world-recog- nized writers,why don't they sponsorthose writers?Why? Because they don't know about them." Anothersaid: "Forme it's a pity that Polish Americansdon't know Polish culture. Do you know W_?, well, he bringsgroups from Polandover here. It's stupidbecause some people thinkthat those actorsor performersrepresent Polish culture. Baloney. They [Polish Americans]don't even know that Polish theaterwas consideredthe best in the world in the 1970s." For both immigrantsand ethnics, politicalheroes and culturalicons are embeddedin the time periodof emigration.Current Polish Americanethnic culture is the creationof the turn- of-the-centurywave shapedwithin a U.S. context. ThusPolish ethnics write pamphlets about, name streetsafter, and celebratethe holidaysof CasimirPulaski and ThaddeusKosciuszko- Immigrantsand Ethnics 181

generals in the AmericanRevolution (the spellings of both names have been anglicized). New immigrantsvalue Polish cultureas it has evolved in Poland. Political heroes for new immigrantsinclude the Solidamos'dleaders Father Jerzy Popieluszko and Lech Walesa. Cul- tural heroes include the science fiction writerStanislaus Lem, political satiristJan Pietrzak, and poet StanislausBaranczak. Language,too, divides immigrantsand ethnics. Immigrantspoint to the "archaicPolish" spokenby the ethnics. One said, "thelanguage wasn't too common,they were from that old old Polonia." Anothernoted, "He spoke thatold Polish you can only readabout in literature classes in Poland."The Polish spokenby ethnicsdiffers from that spoken by immigrantsfor two reasons. First,the ethnicsoften speaka ruraldialect that is no longerspoken in contem- poraryPoland. Anti-immigrationsentiment and the 100-percentAmerican movement in the early twentiethcentury did not encouragethe childrenof immigrantsto retaintheir native language. Languageclasses sponsoredby Polish fraternalorganizations at that time were Englishlanguage classes. If childrenlearned Polish, they learnedthe dialectof theirparents. Languagedifferences also exist becauseethnics speak a hybridPolish-English. For example, Polish Americansuse English syntax and Polish vocabulary(i.e., the sentencesare likely to follow the Englishnoun-verb-object pattern). Or they conjugateAmerican verbs along Polish patterns(e.g., parkowac means "to park"). The languageof ethnics is not "dead,"but its regenerativesource is America,not Poland. In the shadowof the "crusadefor Americaniza- tion" (Higham 1963) the ethnics createda uniqueculture. The RomanCatholic Church, while servingas a nexus for social interactionbetween immigrantsand ethnics in Chicago,is also a site of conflict. RomanCatholicism is the dominant religion of Poland. Historically,the Churchhas been a sourceof unity for the Poles; many believe that Polishness, as a nationalidentity, survivedin the Churchduring the years of partition(1795-1918) and communistrule (Parot 1981). For early twentieth-centuryPolish immigrantsin Chicago,the Churchwas botha unifyinginstitution in local neighborhoodsand the source of internecinestruggle among the variouspolitical factions (Parot 1981). In the 1980s, the Churchwas an arenaof conflictbecause ethnics and immigrantsdisagreed on roles and behaviorwithin the Church. For example,the Solidarnofs refugeesfelt that the Church should be more politicized. Many priests in Poland supportedSolidarnoid in words and deeds. In the United States, however,refugees had disagreementswith Churchofficials in Chicago who refusedto allow politicalbanners to be hung in churches. In addition,immi- grantssaid they thoughtof priestsas educated,but were surprisedto find Polish American priestsspeaking a colloquial"low" level of Polish. Immigrantswere criticalof Polish Ameri- can priests'weekly sermons,which they saw as fundraisingefforts, rather than as an interpre- tation of scripture. Polish Americanpriests criticized new immigrantsfor not formally registeringwith the parishand for not contributingsufficiently to the weekly collection. Fi- nally, the immigrantsand ethnics had differentreligious rituals. For example, in Poland, Catholicscan go to confessionbefore or duringmass in orderto give them an opportunityto cleanse their soul before receivingcommunion. In the United States, confessions are often heard only once a week, usually on Saturdays,and most AmericanRoman Catholicstake communioneven if they have not been to confession. The RomanCatholic Church provides a contextthat brings immigrants and ethnics together; however, differences in expectationsand behaviorlead to minorannoyances and squabbling. Some ethnicsdescribe the conflictbetween themselves and the new immigrantsin political terms. Polish Americansassert that immigrants"have a communistmentality, they don't 182 THE SOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY Vol. 36/No. 1/1995 understand how things work over here," they are "brainwashed," and that "communist rule changed the psychology of those people." These kinds of statements are used to criticize the work ethic of the new immigrants. Ethnics believe that the welfare state in Poland destroyed Poles' willingness to work and their ability to find jobs on their own initiative. They believe that the immigrants "came here expecting a handout because that's what they got from the communist government. . . . Their mental attitude is one that accepts the welfare system." Polish Americans describe the effects of communism in several ways:

These peoplecame froma communistcountry where everyone was guaranteeda job and a house. And when they come here they have to struggle,and this is where the problems start. They have been indoctrinatedin Polandfor over 30 years-the stategives you a job, the state gives you medicalinsurance, the state gives you an education. They came from a communistsystem, it is different. I'll give you an example. A young fellow came to me and said, "Whatkind of countryis this, thereis no office thatgives you an apartment?"You know I startedlaughing and then I pickedup the weekendedition of the paperand I said, "Lookhere, one, two, three,four pages of apartmentsfor rent. What kind of apartmentdo you want?"

New immigrants do not agree with the ethnics' assessment. In fact, use of public assistance by Polish refugees is low (Cichon, Godziak, and Grover 1986, p. 5). Still, many ethnics attribute the differences between them and immigrants to the effects of communism. In summary, the divisions within Chicago's Polonia are in part a result of these different interpretations of Polishness and are expressed in language, musical and literary preferences, sacred rituals and heroes, and social values and attitudes. For immigrants, Polishness is shaped by contemporary communist Poland, while for ethnics it emerges from the context of being a white ethnic group with roots in nineteenth-century rural Poland living in pluralist America. As a result of these differences, Polish Americans and Polish immigrants frame their relations in an "us/them" debate rather than a "we" dialogue.

THE SOCIAL CATEGORIESOF IMMIGRANTAND ETHNIC

A second explanation for the conflict between Polish Americans and Polish immigrants is found in the social categories of immigrant and ethnic. Three important differences are evident: (1) the voluntary nature of the identity, (2) the resources and opportunities available, and (3) the needs of the population. The first difference is that the cultural identity is a voluntary allegiance for the ethnic but not for the immigrant. Mary Waters defines ethnic identity as a "tool" that expands the white ethnics' resources of self-definition (1990, p. 155); it is a playful, meaningless, costless identity used to add color to social personalities. The tool, however, is optional; Polish Ameri- cans, for example, can claim ethnic identity when it is convenient. As Poland gained international prominence in the 1980s (as a result of the pontification of Karol Wotyla as Jan Pawel the rise of and the fame of Lech Walesa), it became more socially II, Solidarnoid., interesting to be Polish. As the president of the Polish American Congress noted in 1987, "I have a lot of people coming and telling me they are Polish; they are wearing their ethnicity proudly now. But I asked them, 'Why did you hide it before?' " The ability to mask the identity indicates its optional character. In contrast, most new immigrants are easily identified because English is not their native language-they speak either no English, broken English, or Immigrantsand Ethnics 183 accentedEnglish. Thus even if they want to deny theirheritage, their language betrays their foreignness. The accent itself becomes what ErvingGoffman (1963) calls the stigmatizing trait. The second differencerefers to networks,resources, and opportunitiesavailable to the two populations. EasternEuropean immigrants and their descendantsexperienced structural ex- clusion in the early part of this century;however, by the 1980s there were relativelyfew disparitiesamong white ethnic groupsin educationaland economicopportunities (Lieberson and Waters 1988; Alba 1990). Today,one's ethnicitydoes not limit one's choice of marital partner,friends, or residence;it is not a basis for discrimination,nor is it a cause for shameor self-hatred(Waters 1990). CharlesHirschman argues: "The character of ethnicityhas shifted over the last fifty years. It was once an axis of socio-economicstratification and institutional segregation;it is now a symbolof culturaland politicaldifferentiation" (1983, p. 416). This shift from a statusto a culturalidentity has occurred,in the absenceof distinguishingphysical markers,as a result of the successionof generations.By the same token, new immigrants, because they are first generation,have not made this shift. As newcomers,immigrants have limitedaccess to networks,resources, and opportunities. The extent to which the newcomerstatus limits resourcesvaries greatly. First, immigrants arrivingwith materialresources, translatable job skills (e.g., computers,engineering, mechanics), and strong educationalbackgrounds certainly have more opportunitiesthan do immigrants without those resources (Portes and Bach 1985; Pedraza-Bailey1985). Second, differentimmigrant groups have differentnetworks and resourcesdepending on the community built by their predecessors(Portes 1990; Portes and Bach 1985; Portes and Manning 1986) and on the age and gendercomposition of theirhouseholds (Kibria 1994). Third,networks and resourcesavailable to immigrantsin differentlabor sectors are dependenton the structuralcharacteristics of the regionto which they immigrateand the periodof immigration (Morawska1990; di Leonardo1984; Pedraza1994). Fourth,the legal statusof immigrants affects resources;refugees who receive state monies are in a betterposition to overcomethe newcomerlimitations than are undocumentedimmigrants (Piore 1979;Pedraza-Bailey 1985). Finally,the permanencyof the immigrant'sstay can reinforceor minimizethe structurallimi- tationsof immigrantstatus by providingmotivation and stateresources (Piore 1979; Mostwin 1971). While materialand communityresources, state monies, education,and occupationaland languageskills affect the opportunitiesavailable to newcomers,newness is neverthelessin- trinsicto the immigrantexperience. This newnessseparates immigrants from ethnics. Immi- grants suffer from the newcomerstatus because: (1) their informationnetworks are more circumscribed,and (2) theirhuman capital is devalued. Comparedto establishedmembers of society, immigrantshave fewer networksthrough which resources can flow. Languagelimita- tions and informalnetworks tie newcomersto immigrantcommunities. Althoughnetworks within the immigrantcommunity often providenewcomers with information,assistance and jobs (Barton1975; Morawska1985; Portesand Manning1986; Tilly 1990), these same networks limit immigrants'choices. For example,new Poles coming to Chicago in the 1980s could find jobs as domestics or constructionworkers, but the immigrantcommunity could providelittle informationabout how to enroll in an Americanuniversity or how to obtaina professionallicense. Newcomersrely on informationcirculating within the smallercommu- nity and when this informationis incomplete,so are immigrants'options. 184 THE SOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY Vol. 36/No. 1/1995

Immigrantsalso suffer because not all humancapital is transferableacross borders. For example,a Polish doctor,who is an eloquentand eruditespeaker of Polish and who had six years of medicalschooling, three years of medicalresidency, and five years of practiceas a medicaldoctor, found thatemigration reduced the value of his Polish languageskills, educa- tionaldegrees, and occupationalexperience. In his case, the only humancapital that survived migrationwas the medical school training. The playwrightJanusz Glowacki described his losses: "Imaginewhat it wouldbe like if you wereto suddenlyland in Polandand have to start all over. Back home I had six plays producedand four screenplaysfilmed.... But they were all in Polish .... It was as thougheverything I'd achievedand writtenhad suddenlydisap- peared"(Smith 1988, p. 10). It is not that immigrantscannot find jobs, but the jobs they do find are of lower status than the jobs they had in their countryof origin (Erdmans1992; Cichon et al. 1986; Piore 1979). The structuralbarriers that white immigrantsencounter are not the resultof theirmember- ship in a culturalgroup (e.g., being Polish-however it is defined),but because they are newcomers. Put anotherway, Polish immigrantsare in a disadvantagedposition not because they speak Polish but because they do not speak English. As immigrantsacquire English language skills, expand their networks,and obtain Americaneducation and professional licenses, they overcomethe barriersof their immigrantstatus. A thirddifference emerges as a consequenceof these firsttwo differences. Becauseof the structurallimitations of the newcomerstatus and the fact that the status is not voluntary, immigrantshave differentneeds than ethnics. The immigrant,at least initially,concentrates on meetingbasic needs (e.g., jobs and housing). In contrast,the ethnic focuses on the needs of the ethniccommunity (e.g., culturalmaintenance and antidefamation). The processesshap- ing the two identitiesare incongruent.While ethnics,by definition,work to maintaina cultural identity,immigrants work to shed the newcomeridentity.

IMMIGRANTCOMMUNITIES AND ETHNICORGANIZATIONS

In orderfor immigrantsto identifywith ethnicsor join the ethniccommunity, they need to see that the ethnic communityhas somethingto offer them. Breton(1964) arguesthat the more institutionallycomplete the ethniccommunity, the moreattractive it is to the immigrant.Yet, even an institutionallycomplete ethnic community will have little to offer immigrantsif that communityis composedof and dominatedby native-bornestablished residents, as is the case in Chicago Polonia. Immigrantsneed to learn English, to understandhow the social institutionsin the new society work, and to maintaincontacts with friendsand family in the home country. Conse- quently,they need professionals(e.g., doctorsand lawyers)who speak their own language, employmentand social servicecenters, and transoceanic shipping companies to transferfunds and goods to the homeland. In contrast,ethnics need to maintaincultural attachment to their heritage. This is done throughparticipation in ethnic choral and dance groups, language classes, andfestivals, as well as interestgroups that lobby for ethnicrights and stateresources. These needs createdifferent types of communities.The immigrantcommunity is spatially located-often within a few city blocks-and is easily recognizable,such as Little Italy or Chinatown.The functionof the immigrantcommunity is to reducethe strainof the newcomer status. It does this by deliveringimmigrant services and by providingconsumer services in the immigrants'native language. Immigrantsand Ethnics 185

In contrast,the functionof the ethnic communityis to celebrateand defendcultural identity. These functionscan be met by organizationsthat are dispersedthroughout the city, state, or nation. Participationin ethnicorganizations is on a less frequentbasis thanis participation in an immigrantcity, state,or nation. Ethnicmembers meet for social events on a monthlyor annualbasis. In some cases no face-to-faceinteraction takes place; instead,members keep in contactwith the organizationthrough a newsletter.The ethnic servicesare providedby non- profitorganizations rather than businesses. This type of communitymore closely resemblesa networkof organizationsthan a neighborhood. Accordingto a developmentalimmigrant-into-ethnic model, these two types of communities-spatially definedimmigrant consumer centers and dispersedethnic organizationalnet- works-represent two ends of a continuum.In Polonia,both types of communitiesexist. The early immigrantcohort built a dense arrayof institutionsto service its religious,educational, social, consumer, financial, political, recreational,and professional needs (Thomas and Znaniecki1918-1920; Pienkos 1984; Brozek 1985). Saint StanislausKostka church in Chi- cago listed seventy-foursuch organizationsin its parishjubilee albumin 1907 (Thomasand Znaniecki 1918-1920, p. 1564-1566), and at that time there were twenty-twoother Polish parishesin the Chicago metropolitanarea (Parot 1981, p. 76). At the turn of the twentieth century, the Polish fraternalinsurance organizations(the centerpiece of organizational Polonia) built centers to provide shelter for immigrants,sponsored literacy and English classes, and urgedtheir membersto become citizens and vote (Kantowicz1977). By mid-century,Polonia had become an ethniccommunity. The ethnic fraternalorganizations taughtPolish languageclasses insteadof Englishclasses and fundedchoral and dance groups. As presidentof PolishNational Alliance (PNA) from 1968 to 1988, AloysiusMazew- ski stressedan ethnicagenda that focused on antidefamationand antidiscriminationactivities, culturalmaintenance, and politicalrepresentation (Pienkos 1984). In the 1970s, the PNA's main goal was to enhance"the prestige of Poloniaand its concomitant,the statusof Ameri- cans of Polish origin in the pluralistsociety" (Polish NationalAlliance 1980, p. 8). By the 1980s, Chicago had a well-developedPolish ethnic community,which included 16 national fraternalorganizations. Seven of the largestfraternals had theirheadquarters as well as hun- dredsof local lodges in Chicago(e.g., the Polish NationalAlliance had 289 lodges in Illinois in the late 1970s). In additionthere were twenty-eightcultural and educationalorganizations (e.g., the CopernicusFoundation, the Knightsof Dabrowski,and the Legionof YoungPolish Women),eighteen veterans' associations, and seventeenschools that taughtPolish language classes on Saturdaymornings. Finally, Chicago Polonia still has its own museum, sports clubs, art galleries,and scoutingorganization.3 These organizationsare scatteredthroughout the Chicagometropolitan area; many are in the suburbs,as are Polish Americansthemselves (Lopata1994, p. 146). This geographicallydispersed ethnic community stands in contrastto the easily identifiable immigrantcommunity, which is densely packed into a few blocks aroundMilwaukee and BelmontAvenues. This area,known as Jackowo(after the local parishchurch), is referredto as the "Polishdowntown," the "PolishWashington D.C.," and the "Polishcentrum." In this area in 1989, over 61 percentof the businessowners, 74 percentof the employers,and 91 percentof the customerswere Polish.4 The majorityof Polish owners,workers, and customers in Jackowowere new Polish immigrants(Table 3). Even non-Polishowners hired Polish managersand workersbecause most of the customersdid not speak English.5 186 THE SOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY Vol. 36/No. 1/1995

* Table 3 Polish Owners,Workers and Customersin Jackowo,A PolishNeighborhood in Chicago,1989

Number of Number Percent Valid Cases' Polish % Polish New Poles?

Businesseswhere the ownerswere Polish N=150 N=91 61% 64% Businesseswhere most of the workerswere Polish N=127 N=94 74% 69% Businesseswhere most of the customerswere Polish N=164 N=149 91% 60%

Notes:

a. There were 183 total cases. Cases became invalid when the buildings were vacant (N=9) or when data were missing. For business owners (row one), cases were excluded when it was a state-ownedbusiness (e.g., a social service center for the elderly) or when it was owned by a corporation(e.g., a bank). The low number of valid cases for the workers results mostly from missing data. Many workers were immigrantswithout work visas, and owners were reluctantto answer questions about them. In fact, I began to ask questions about the workers at the end of the interview because a few of the early interviews were abruptlyended after the questioning about workers began. b. Percentageof Polish business owners, workersand customerswho arrivedin the United States after 1965. Column 4 is a percentageof column 2.

Polish immigrantscan shop, pray,get theirhair cut, andbuy a gravestonein Jackowo. The varietyof Polish-speakingbusinesses in the neighborhoodincludes doctors, lawyers, dentists, optometrists,and pharmacists;delicatessens, meat markets,and bakeries;clothing, shoe, and furniturestores; bars and restaurants;bankers, mechanics, and morticians;as well as a Polish book store, video store, and recordstore (Figure 1). The specific immigrantbusinesses include seven travelagencies that ship packagesto Poland,four employmentagencies that are not strict about "greencard" requirements, and four service agencies that help obtain visas, passports,and otherdocuments that foreignersneed. While this neighborhoodmeets immigrantneeds, it does not cater to ethnic needs. No ethniccultural, political, or social groupshad theirheadquarters in this communityin the late 1980s (with the exceptionof the DmowskiInstitute, a politicaldiscussion organization whose membersare mostly post-WWIIimmigrants). Immigrantsshop in the Polish neighborhoodbecause the shop owners and workersspeak Polish, because the communityprovides special services that immigrantsneed, and because the immigrantsdo not feel stigmatizedby the fact thatthey do not speakEnglish. In contrast, Polish Americansuse the communityto reinforcea culturalheritage (e.g., to buy rye bread and kielbasa for the Easter meal). Immigrantsare dependenton this service community; ethnicsare optionalconsumers. While ethnics can use the immigrantcommunity to feed their culturalidentities, immigrants have been unableto use the ethnicorganizations to fulfill their newcomerneeds.

"WHY DON'T THEYFIND ME A JOB?"

As the ethnic identity becomes less significantin each generation(Lieberson and Waters 1988;Gans 1979; Alba 1990) it becomesmore difficult for ethnicorganizations to enroll new members. "Old Polonia"ethnic leaders saw the new immigrantsas a potentialsource of organizationalmaintenance. On the otherside, the immigrantshoped that the ethnicorganizations would help them overcomethe limitationsof their newcomerstatus. Despite the per- ceived opportunityfor reciprocityand the belief that, as one leaderof the communitysaid, "we are all Poles, we should work together,"neither group helped the other. Immigrantsand Ethnics 187

Figure 1 * Typesof Businessesin Jackowo

ImmigrantServices (N=16) 7 Travel Agency 4 Employment Agency 4 General Immigrantservices (visas, passports,shipping) 1 Shipping Agency Retail Stores (N=67) 25 Clothing 1 Pet Store 9 Home Furnishing I Bookstore (Polish) 7 Jewelry 1 Records and Tapes 6 Variety I Videos 4 Shoe 1 Gravestones 2 Hardware 1 Fabric 2 Health Foods 1 Bridal 2 Electronics 1 Religious 2 Art Galleries Services excluding health (N=31) 8 Barbers/BeautyShops 1 Social Service 4 Lawyers 1 Real Estate 4 Florists 1 Shoe Repair 3 Gas Stations/AutoServices 1 Funeral Home 2 Banks 1 PhotographyStore 3 Cleaners/Laundromats 1 Printing Services 1 Income Tax Services Food and Liquor (N=31) 13 Restaurants 9 Delicatessens 5 Liquor Stores 3 Bakeries 1 Fruit Market Health Care (N=20) 6 Clinics 5 Dentists 3 Doctors 3 Pharmacies 2 Opticians 1 Hearing Aid Shop Leisure (N=9) 5 Bars 2 Clubs/Organizations 1 Bowling Alley 1 Night Club Vacant Buildings (N=9)

Immigrantsdid not join the ethnic organizationsbecause these organizationsdid not offer immigrantservices, and whatthey did provide-affirmationof a culturalidentity-the immigrantsdid not need. Moreover,ethnic organizationswere not receptiveto immigrants(e.g., theirmeetings were conductedin English). Moreover,the organizations'agendas focused on ethnic needs. For example, in 1985 the PNA had over 194 million dollars in assets (PNA 1984). The assets were used to financethe insurancepremiums of the fraternaland to support its ninety-fivedifferent dance, drama, and choralgroups. The immigrantswere unsuccessful in their efforts to have the money redirectedtoward immigrant services or towardhelping Poland'sdemocratic opposition movement (Erdmans 1992). Immigrantscomplained that ethnic organizationswould not help them with their most pressingneed of findingadequate employment. One immigrantsaid thatethnic organizations 188 THE SOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY Vol. 36/No. 1/1995

are "for having tradition... not for helping immigrants." When asked to clarify what he meantby helping immigrants,he talkedabout the large numberof Polish refugees who had had professionalcareers in Polandand were now forcedto acceptmenial positions in Chicago and of the lack of concernPolish Americanshad shown in this area. On a Polish-language radio talk show in Chicago in March 1988, two new refugeescalled to complainabout the lack of supportthey were receivingfrom Polish Americanorganizations. One observed,"If you finda job or an apartmentit's usuallythrough friends, or a friendof a friend,"not through one of the ethnicorganizations. One studyfound that 75 percentof employedPolish refugees foundjobs throughinformal referrals, another 21 percentfound jobs throughnewspapers or professionaljournals, and only one personfound a job throughan organization(Cichon et al. 1986, p. 59). At a communityforum in February1989, new immigrantsdirected hostile questions at the speaker,an employeeof an ethnic fraternal.One man complained,"The [fraternal] doesn't help us; they look prettybut they don't do anything. They have meetings and Wigilia [Christmascelebrations] but they don't help us." Anotherman bluntly asked the speaker,"Why don't you give us jobs?" The immigrantsbelieve that ethnic organizationsshould help them because they share a commonancestral identity-that is, they are Polish. The directorof one ethnic organization said thatwhen immigrantscalled her, the questionswere mostlyabout immigration, financial assistance,or health problems:"They arrivein Chicago [and] they startcalling the Polish organizations.And they find out thatI don't have an apartmentto give them. I don't have a job to give thembecause I don't know of any today. The most I can do todayis to makesure they get a basketof food. I can have the city put themup in one of those overnightshelters. And then the resentmentsstart. What,you're a Polish organization,what are you here for? You're supposedto be helpingme.... They come in and they expect the Polish organization to be ready and waitingto give them a job, housing,clothing, and school." The problemis that an ethnic fraternalis not an immigrantorganization. Ethnic organizations cannothelp new immigrantsfind professionaljobs becausethey are not set up for that function. As one directorsaid, "Noneof us are in a positionor have the powerto hire these people." The directorsof these organizationsoften expresseda desireto help immigrantsbut said they did not have the organizationalresources with which to help. The main functionof an ethnicorganization is to act as a regenerativesource for ethnicity. The purposeof such events as Polish HeritageMonth or the Ellis Islandtribute, both sponsored by Polish Americanorganizations, is to reintroducesuccessive generationsof Polish Americansto their culturalheritage. Ethniccultural survival helps insure ethnic organizational survival. Ethnic maintenance,however, is only importantfor ethnics. Immigrants maintaintheir cultural identity without an ethnicorganization; the Polish identityis intrinsic to theirimmigrant status. Moreover,the new immigrantsdisagree with the Polish Americans aboutthe interpretationof Polishness. A second functionof ethnicorganizations is to encourageethnic pride-either by counter- acting negativestereotypes (e.g., throughantidefamation committees) or by promotingposi- tive images (e.g., throughcultural celebration events). For example, the Polish Women's Alliance,a fraternalbenefit association, sponsors Polish thematic essay contestsand historical toursin Poland. At the FestivalPolonaise in 1988, two boothssold T-shirts,bumper stickers, license plate rims, and other paraphernaliawith pro-Polishslogans such as: "Proudto be Polish";"Half Polish is Betterthan None"; "Genuine Polish Parts";"Happiness is Being Po- lish";and "PolishPower." Immigrantsdo not wearethnic-pride pins, One reasonis thatnew Immigrantsand Ethnics 189 immigrantsdo not experiencethe stigmatizationof being a "Pollack"in the UnitedStates. In fact, immigrantsoften point out thatpolak is simply the Polish word for a Polish man. One said, "Yes, I ampolak, whatis all the fuss?"While immigrants experience the stigmaof being a newcomer,they do not yet experiencethe (minimal)stigma of Polish ethnicityin the United States. Immigrantsdo not have to join organizationsto be remindedof the fact thatthey are Polish, and since their stigmais not connectedto theircultural identity, the ethnicorganizations ap- pear frivolousto them. Moreover,because ethnic organizationsdo not help the immigrants, the immigrantssee no reasonto join them. One immigrantsaid, "Thebiggest sin of the old Poles [Polish Americans]here in America[is that] they are not willing to help new immigrants. And this is why most people who are emigratingare not joining these organizations." Anotherexplained, "I asked the [fraternal]for a referencewhen I was startingup a business and the [director]refused to give me one." Todaythis man belongs to severalbusiness and professionalorganizations, but not to any Polish Americanorganizations. Another said, "Be- cause they are not willing to be with us in the firstearly days of our arrival,when help is most important,we are not joining these organizations." The ethnic leadersalso operateon a reciprocityprinciple; they feel it is unfairto ask an organizationfor help if you are not a memberof the organization.The presidentof one fraternalrelated this story:"I had a mancall up yesterdayand say, 'I come fromPoland. Can you help me?' He talkedfor an hourabout his visa statusand finallyI said, 'Sir, I can't give you any moreof my time. I can't help you.' He says, 'But I come fromPoland.' Every day I get calls from people to help. Yet they won't belong to a fraternal."In 1988, a fraternal donated$5,000 to the PolishWelfare Association (a social serviceorganization that does help immigrants)and at the same time lodged a complaintagainst the new immigrantsfor not buying insurancepolicies from the fraternals.In that same year, the chairmanof the Polish AmericanHeritage Month Committee received this commentfrom a memberof Polonia:"For the past 20 years or morethe new immigrantsthat have come to Americahave shown themselves to be above our Polonia. They are not interestedin joining our associations,fraternals, churchesor even help groups." Duringthe 1980s, anothersource of immigrant-ethnicinfighting was the issue of help for Poland-the immigrantsargued that the organizationswere not helpingPoland enough, the ethnicsargued that their resources should be directedtoward domestic issues (Erdmans1992). Immigrantscomments included: "They have so manyorganizations but no organizationsfor Poland." "All this organizingbut no action for Poland." "The main purposefor Polonia should be to help Poland,but they don't thinkthat way. Only we [immigrants]care about Poland."The new immigrantscreated their own organizationsto help Polandrather than join the establishedethnic organizations.Organizations such as Brotherhoodof Solidarityand Freedomfor Poland,which workedsolely to help the democraticopposition movement, were foundedby the new Poles. This conflictover allocationof resourcescan once again be ex- plainedby differencesbetween immigrants and ethnics. The countryof birthinfluences political identities, so that immigrantsare more concernedwith home countryissues than are ethnics. Moreover,immigrants and ethnics have had differentlife experiences-the Polish had been membersof the unionor active in the movement,while Polish refugees Solidarnog Americanswere, at most, financialsupporters from acrossthe ocean. These differentexperiences createddifferent information networks, political loyalties, and styles of protestthat were manifestas differentmovement strategies and ideologies for helpingPoland's opposition 190 THE SOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY Vol. 36/No. 1/1995

(Erdmans1992). Despite the fact that both the immigrantsand ethnics supportedPoland's oppositionmovement, they were seldom able to cooperateto achieve theircollective goals.

CONCLUSION

The processby which an immigrantbecomes an ethnicoccurs over time. In the initialstages, however,the two populationsare differentin thattheir identities produce different demands. Culturalidentities, social needs,and political interests emerge from and are shapedby a population's countryof birth. These differencesin culture,needs, and interestsplay a more deter- minativerole in grouprelations than shared ancestry. While sharedancestry leads the groups to believe they "ought"to work together,it does not always function well as a basis for solidaritybetween immigrantsand ethnics. This researchsupports recent work on culturalidentities (e.g., Hall, Hobson, Lowe, and Willis 1986), reinforcingthe notionthat culture is not a staticrepresentation of artifacts.Pol- ishness in the UnitedStates is neithera Chopinsonata nor Stan'sPolka band. Ethnicityis not a museumthat preservescultural traditions. Instead, Polishness is forged by a multitudeof contexts that cross temporal,national, and ideologicalborders: rural nineteenth-century and industrialtwentieth-century Poland; anticommunism and democratization;the 1960s ethnic revival in the United States and anti-Semitismin Poland. The dynamic natureof Polish ethnicityemerges within American society and throughthe integrationof the multiplewaves of new Polish immigrants,who bringwith them "updated"versions of the homelandculture. Each version of the culture is shaped by the political and economic evolutions of the homeland. The findings move us away from what Paul Gilroy identifiesas a "dogmaticfocus on nationalcultures" (1992, p. 188). The era of ethnicnations and nationalethnicity has passed. Nations are not always built on ethnic unity (Brubaker1989), and ethnic unity does not always emerge among groupswho emigratedfrom the same geographicregion. Movements acrossborders have alwaysresulted in constructedcultures that have roots in numeroushemi- spheres and nations. A transnationalapproach to culturerecognizes the diasporicnature of these identities. As culturalstudies and multiculturalcurriculums take hold in Americanuniversities, we need to recognizethe heterogeneous,complex, multidimensional, and dynamicnature of cultural identities. The bordersof "Asian,""Latino," "Black," and "White"identities are con- tested and evolving. We cannot simply box up identities. As Gilroy suggests, "absolutist conceptionsof culture"are erroneouslysimplistic and lend themselvesto ethnocentricand racistideologies. Suchabsolutist and essentialist notions become susceptible to proprietorship (Chow 1993). "Polishness,"like "Blackness"(Gilroy 1992) or "Chineseness"(Chow 1993), is not a propertyto which one groupcan lay claim. The claim to culturalownership, and the discountingof the "other"for not being Polish enough,or Black enough,or Chineseenough, simply createsthe opportunityto reproduceor newly produceexclusionary power structures. Rey Chow (1993) warnsthat groupsescaping subordinate status positions should be careful not to simply reconfigurethe power relationswith themselveson top. When identitiesare used as weaponsto wield powerover othergroups, "the new solidaritiesare often informedby a strategicattitude which repeatswhat they seek to overthrow"(1993, p. 17). As we move towardan increasinglyinclusionary political and academicagenda, it becomes even more importantthat we understandthe forcesbehind the constructionof ethnicityrather than quibbleover which versionof the ethnicityis represented.Our focus should centeron Immigrantsand Ethnics 191 understanding the political and economic forces propelling identity construction, including colonialism, industrial transformation, political transitions, and state immigration policies, as well as ethnicity-based social movements and national revolts. Focusing on process will move us away from the simple catalog-style analysis of naming the content of ethnic cultures.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank Celia Berdes, Peter Kivisto, David Mitchell and anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

NOTES 1. Many of these "visitors"(known as wakacjusze-i.e., vacationers)work in the UnitedStates and overstaytheir six-month visa limitations;an estimatedone-third do not returnto Poland(Kulczycki 1989, p. 16; Erdmans1992, p.139). 2. The effects of politicalchanges in the homelandon the identitiesof the immigrantcohorts were also evident in the Serbiancommunity in Milwaukee(Padgett 1980). Serbsarriving in the early 1900s left from provincesruled by the Austro-Hungarianempire and had not developeda strongnational consciousness.The post-WWIISerbs were politicalrefugees, many of whom had been affiliatedwith the Serbiannationalist Chetnik movement, who were fleeing from the recent communisttake-over. This group was highly nationalistic. When post-WWIISerbian 6migres arrived in Milwaukee,they were thrustinto an "Americanized"second-generation Serbian ethnic communitythat was "alienatedby the newcomers'call for renewedsupport of Serbiannationalism" (Padgett, 1980 p. 60-61). The conflict stemmedfrom the differentweight given to the issue of nationalismwithin the Serbiancommunity. 3. These organizationswere identifiedin October1988 throughnewspapers, telephone directories, organizationalarchives, and the Polonia Vademecum:A Handbookof Informationon Poles, compiled and printedby Ewa Gieratin Bethlehem,CT. 4. In the summerof 1989, I collected data on every business on the first floor on both sides of MilwaukeeAvenue between and including the 2800 and3200 blocks. I used open-endedquestions to get informationabout the ethnicity,year of arrival,residence, and languageof the owners,managers, workers, and customers,as well as how long the presentowner had been in businessat this location. Toward the southernend of this strip,the Polishneighborhood becomes an Hispanic(mostly Puerto Rican) neighborhood. On the 2800 block, out of fifty-twobusinesses, only twelve (23 percent)were owned by Poles. In this block therewere eleven businessesowned by Hispanics,five ownedby Koreans,and fourowned by Greeks. Exceptfor the fifteenbusinesses owned by MiddleEasterners, most of the non-Polishbusi- nesses were in this southernblock. Even thoughmany of the owners in this block were not Polish, I includedthis areabecause many of the customerswere Polish. While the neighborhoodbecomes decid- edly Hispanicsouth of 2800 Milwaukee,the 2800 block representsthe transitionalarea. It is in this area that one finds signs reading "HablaEspanol, Mowimy po Polsku." 5. Of the fifteenMiddle Easterners (Jordanian and Lebanese)with businessesin this neighborhood, two ownersspoke some Polish;at five otherstores they hiredPolish workers; and seven storeshad Polish signs. The actionsof the MiddleEasterners contrast greatly with those of the Hispanics. Of the thirteen businessesowned by Hispanics,none of the ownersspoke Polish,none of the workerswere Polish, and only one sign had any Polish on it-it was trilingual. While over three-quartersof the customersat storesowned by MiddleEasterners were Polish;only fifteenpercent of the customersof Hispanicbusi- nesses were Polish. 192 THE SOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY Vol. 36/No. 1/1995

REFERENCES

Alba, Richard. 1990. Ethnic Identity: The Transformation of White America. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress. Barton, Josef. 1975. Peasants and Strangers: Italians, Rumanians and Slovaks in an American City, 1890-1950. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversity Press. Blejwas, Stanislaus. 1981. "Old and New Polonians:Tension Within an EthnicCommunity." Polish American Studies 38(2): 55-83. Bodnar, John. 1985. The Transplanted: A History of Immigrants in Urban America. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press. Bonacich,Edna. 1972. "A Theoryof EthnicAntagonism: The Split LaborMarket." American Socio- logical Review 37:547-559. Breton,Raymond. 1964. "InstitutionalCompleteness of EthnicCommunities and the PersonalRelations of Immigrants." American Journal of Sociology 70:193-205. Brozek,Andrzej. 1985. Polish Americans:1854-1939. New Brunswick,NJ: TransactionPublishers. Brubaker,William Rogers. 1989. "Introduction."Pp. 1-29 in Immigrationand the Politics of Citizen- ship in Europeand NorthAmerica, edited by WilliamRogers Brubaker. New York:University Press of America. Chow, Rey. 1993. Writing Diaspora: Tactics of Intervention in Contemporary Cultural Studies. Bloomington:Indiana University Press. Cichon, Donald,Elzbieta Godziak, and Jane Grover. 1986. The Economicand Social Developmentof Non-SoutheastAsian Refugees. Washington,DC: U.S. Departmentof Healthand HumanServ- ices, Office of Refugee Resettlement,GPO. Conzen, KathleenNeils. 1991. "Mainstreamsand Side Channels:The Localizationof ImmigrantCul- tures." Journal of American Ethnic History 11(1): 5-20. Conzen,Kathleen Neils, David A. Gerber,Ewa Morawska,George Pozzetta, and RudolphVecoli. 1990. "The Inventionof Ethnicity:A Perspectivefrom the USA." Altreitalie3:37-63. di Leonardo, Micaela. 1984. The Varieties of Ethnic Experience: Kinship, Class and Gender Among California Italian-Americans. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Erdmans, 1992. and Ethnics:Patterns of Between New and Established Mary. "lmigr6s Cooperation Organizationsin Chicago'sPolish Community."Ph.D. dissertation,Northwestern University. .. 1994. "PoliticalActivity in Chicago Polonia, 1978-1990." Chapter8 in Helena Znaniecka Lopata'sPolish Americans.2d ed. New Brunswick,NJ: TransactionPublishers. Gans, Herbert. 1962. The Urban Villagers: Group and Class in the Life of Italian-Americans. New York:Free Press. 1979. "SymbolicEthnicity: The Futureof EthnicGroups and Culturesin America." Ethnic •-. and Racial Studies 2:1-19. Gilroy, Paul. 1992. "CulturalStudies and EthnicAbsolutism." Pp 187-198 in CulturalStudies, edited by LawrenceGrossberg, Cary Nelson, and PaulaTreichler. New York:Routledge. Glazer,Nathan. 1990. "Hansen'sHypothesis and the HistoricalExperience of Generations."Pp. 104- 113 in American Immigrants and Their Generations, edited by Peter Kivisto and Dag Blanck. Urbana,IL: Universityof Illinois Press. Glazer, Nathan and Daniel Moynihan. 1970. Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians and Irish of New York City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Goffman,Erving. 1963. Stigma. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Gordon,Milton. 1964. Assimilationin AmericanLife. New York:Oxford University Press. Greene, Victor. 1975. For God and Country: The Rise of Polish and Lithuanian Consciousness in America,1860-1910. Madison:State HistoricalSociety of Wisconsin. Hall, Stuart,Dorothy Hobson, Andrew Lowe, and Paul Willis, eds. 1986. Culture,Media, Language. London: Hutchinson. Immigrants and Ethnics 193

Hein, Jeremy. 1991a. "Do 'New Immigrants'Become New 'Minorities?':The Meaningof EthnicMi- norityFor IndochineseRefugees in the UnitedStates." SociologicalPerspectives 31:61-77. . 1991b. "Immigrants,Natives and the FrenchWelfare State: Explaining Different Interactions •- with a Social Welfare Program." International Migration Review 25:592-605. Higham, John. 1963. Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism, 1860-1925. New York: Atheneum. Hirschman,Charles. 1983. "America'sMelting Pot Reconsidered."Annual Review of Sociology 9:397- 423. Hurtado,Aida, PatriciaGurin, and Timothy Peng. 1994. "SocialIdentities-A Frameworkfor Studying the Adaptationsof Immigrantsand Ethnics:The Adaptationsof Mexicansin the United States." Social Problems 41:129-151. Kantowicz,Edward. 1977. "PolishChicago: Survival Through Solidarity." Pp. 180-209 in The Ethnic Frontier,edited by MelvinHolli and PeterJones. GrandRapids, MI: WilliamB. EerdmansPub- lishing Co. Kibria,Nazli. 1994. "HouseholdStructures and FamilyIdeologies: The Dynamicsof ImmigrantEco- nomic AdaptationAmong VietnameseRefugees." Social Problems 41:81-96. Kivisto, Peter. 1990. "The TransplantedThen and Now: The Reorientationof ImmigrationStudies Fromthe ChicagoSchool to the New Social History."Ethnic and Racial Studies 13:455-481. Kromkowski,John. 1990. "A Compendiumof Social, Economicand Demographic Indicators for Polish Ancestryand Selected Populationsin the United States of America."Polish AmericanStudies 47(2): 5-74. Kulczycki,Andrzej. 1989. "RecentChanges in Poland'sPopulation." Studium Papers 13(1): 16. Lieberson, Stanley, and Mary Waters. 1988. From Many Strands: Ethnic and Racial Groups in Contem- poraryAmerica. New York:Russell Sage Foundation. Lopata, Helena Znaniecka. 1994. Polish Americans. 2d ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Luciuk,Lubomyr Y. 1986. "UnintendedConsequences in RefugeeResettlement: Post-War Ukrainian Refugee Immigration to Canada." International Migration Review 20:467-483. Massey,Douglas. 1994. "TheFuture of Immigrationand the Meaningof Ethnicity."Paper presented at the Albany Conference,"American Diversity: A DemographicChallenge for the Twenty-First Century,"Albany, New York. Massey,Douglas, Rafael Alarcon, Jorge Durand, and HumbertoGonzalez. 1987. Returnto Aztlan:The Social Process of International Migration from Western Mexico. Berkeley: University of Califor- nia Press. Model, Suzanne. 1992. "The EthnicEnclave: Cubans and ChineseReconsidered." The Sociological Quarterly 33:63-82. Morawska, Eva. 1985. For Bread With Butter: The Life Worlds of East Central Europeans in Johns- town, Pennsylvania, 1890-1940. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 1990. "The Sociology and Historiographyof Immigration."Pp. 187-238 in ImmigrationRe- considered: History, Sociology, and Politics, edited by Virginia Yans-McLaughlin. New York: OxfordUniversity Press. Mostwin,Danuta. 1971. "TheTransplanted Family: A Studyof Social Adjustmentof the Polish Immi- grantFamily to the United States afterthe Second WorldWar." Ph.D. dissertation,Columbia University. Nagel, Joanne. 1986. 'The PoliticalConstruction of Ethnicity."Pp. 93-112 in CompetitiveEthnic Rela- tions, edited by Susan Olzak and JoanneNagel. New York: AcademicPress. -. 1994. "ConstructingEthnicity: Creating and RecreatingEthnic Identity and Culture." Social Problems 41(1): 152-176. Novak, Michael. 1971. The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics: Politics and Culture in the Seventies. New York:Macmillan. 194 THE SOCIOLOGICALQUARTERLY Vol. 36/No. 1/1995

Olzak, Susan. 1986. "A CompetitiveModel of Ethnic Collective Action in AmericanCities, 1877- 1889." Pp. 17-46 in CompetitiveEthnic Relations, edited by SusanOlzak and Joanne Nagel. New York: AcademicPress. Padgett,Deborah. 1980. "SymbolicEthnicity and Patternsof EthnicIdentity Assertion in American- born Serbs." EthnicGroups 3:55-77. Padilla, Felix. 1985. Latino Ethnic Consciousness: The Case of Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans in Chicago. Notre Dame, IL: Universityof Notre Dame Press. Park,Robert, and HerbertMiller. 1921. Old WorldTraits Transplanted. Chicago: University of Chi- cago Press. Parot, Joseph John. 1981. Polish Catholics in Chicago, 1850-1920. DeKalb: Northern Illinois Univer- sity Press. Patterson,Orlando. 1975. "Contextand Choice in EthnicAllegiance: A TheoreticalFramework and CaribbeanCase Study." Pp. 305-348 in Ethnicity:Theory and Experience,edited by Nathan Glazerand Daniel Moynihan.Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press. Pedraza,Silvia. 1994. "Introductionfrom the SpecialIssue Editor:The Sociology of Immigration,Race and Ethnicityin America."Social Problems 41(1): 1-8. Pedraza-Bailey, Silvia. 1985. Political and Economic Migrants in America. Austin: University of Texas Press. . 1990. "ImmigrationResearch: A ConceptualMap." Social Science History 14(1): 43-67. "Peopleof Chicago:Who We Are and WhereWe Have Been, The." 1976. Chicago:City of Chicago, Departmentof Developmentand Planning. Pfeffer,Max J. 1994. "LowWage Employmentand GhettoPoverty: A Comparisonof African-Ameri- can and CambodianDay-Haul Farm Workers in Philadelphia."Social Problems 41(1): 9-29. Pienkos, Donald. 1984. PNA: A Centennial History of the Polish National Alliance. New York: Co- lumbiaUniversity Press. Piore, Michael. 1979. Birds of Passage: Migrant Labor and Industrial Society. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress. Polish National Alliance (PNA). 1980. PNA: In the Mainstreams Of American Life. Chicago: Alliance Printersand Publishers. . 1986. "FraternalStatistics." From annual statements of the PNA. Portes,Alejandro. 1990. "FromSouth of the Border:Hispanic Minorities in the UnitedStates. Pp. 160- 184 in Immigration Reconsidered: History, Sociology, and Politics, edited by Virginia Yans- McLaughlin.New York:Oxford University Press. Portes, Alejandro, and Robert Bach. 1985. Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexican Immigrants in the UnitedStates. Berkeley:University of CaliforniaPress. Portes,Alejandro, and RobertManning. 1986. '"TheImmigrant Enclave: Theory and EmpiricalExam- ples." Pp. 47-68 in CompetitiveEthnic Relations, edited by SusanOlzak and Joanne Nagel. New York: AcademicPress. Portes,Alejandro, Samuel A. McLeod,Jr., and Robert N. Parker. 1978. "ImmigrantAspirations." Soci- ology of Education 51:241-260. Sanders,Jimy S., and VictorNee. 1987. "Limitsof EthnicSolidarity in the EthnicEnclave." American Sociological Review 52:745-767. Sarna,Jonathan. 1978. "FromImmigrants to Ethnics:Toward a New Theoryof Ethnicization."Ethnic- ity 5:370-378. Shokeid, Moshe. 1988. Children of Circumstance: Israeli Immigrants in New York. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UniversityPress. Smith, Sid. 1988. "A New Stage:Polish Amigr6Playwright Rebuilds His Career."Chicago Tribune, Feb. 28. Sollors, Werner. 1986. Beyond Ethnicity: Consent and Descent in American Culture (Chapter 7). New York:Oxford University Press. --- , ed. 1989. The Inventionof Ethnicity.New York:Oxford University Press. Immigrants and Ethnics 195

Thomas, William, and Florian Znaniecki. [1918-1920] 1958. The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. New York: Dover Publications. Tilly, Charles. 1990. "TransplantedNetworks." Pp. 79-95 in Immigration Reconsidered: History, Soci- ology, and Politics, edited by VirginiaYans-McLaughlin. New York:Oxford University Press. Waters,Mary. 1990. EthnicOptions. Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress. . 1994. "The Social Constructionof Race and Ethnicity:Some Examplesfrom Demography." Paperpresented at the AlbanyConference, "American Diversity: A DemographicChallenge for the Twenty-FirstCentury," Albany, New York. Yancey, William, Eugene Ericksenand RichardJuliano. 1976. "EmergentEthnicity: A Review and Reformulation." American Sociological Review 41:391-403.