• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Bridging Boundaries: Mental Health and the Destigmatization Strategies of Minority Groups Compared

Michèle Lamont Department of Sociology Harvard University

October 24, 20005

To be presented to the seminar on “Medical Anthropology and Cultural Psychiatry Seminar: Culture Theory and Global Mental Health,” Harvard University, William James Hall, October 28, 2005. Versions of this paper have been presented as a public lecture sponsored by the Global Ethnic Literature Seminar, University of Michigan (October 6, 2005) and at a workshop of the Successful Societies Program of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Montebello, Québec, (October 2, 2005). I gratefully acknowledge CIAR for supporting the research that led to this paper.

Draft only – please do not quote or cite.

1 1) Introduction

This chapter starts with the assumption that successful societies tend to be societies that are more inclusive and that have developed weaker social and symbolic boundaries. Not all successful societies present this characteristic, but weak boundaries are one of the dimensions by which one can distinguish more successful from less successful societies. Thus, at the most general level, this chapter is concerned with the social processes by which group boundaries come to be more porous, and more specifically, with the boundary work produced by members of stigmatized groups to transform the meanings given to their collective identity and to rebut group stereotypes that feed and justify discriminatory behavior.1 Building on Lamont and Bail

(forthcoming) and on results from my earlier research on African-Americans and North

African immigrants to France, I provide elements of a framework for considering selected processes that affect the porousness of group boundaries across societies.

Drawing on the analytical tools of cultural sociology, I also discuss hitherto neglected potential cultural pathways that may contribute to the consistent gradients found when health is measured against usual socio-economic factors (income, education, employment, etc.).

1 Other factors that participate in the weakening of group boundaries (for instance redistributive governmental policies) are beyond the purview of this paper. On boundary mechanisms, see Lamont and Molnar (2002).

2 Social epidemiologists have been studying the impact of various ecological factors on the health/inequality nexus. They have given particular attention to factors such as social cohesion, networks, residential segregation, and income inequality (e.g.,

Berkman and Syme 1979, Kawachi 2000). They have also spent considerable energy exploring how relative status, as opposed to absolute status, affects psychosocial orientations and their impact on health (for summaries, see Marmot 2004); Wilkinson

2005). Nevertheless, the literature too often remains vague concerning the relative impact of various elements on health outcomes, and concerning what is meant by “context” and

“environment.”2

A recent paper by medical anthropologists Dressler, Oths and Gravlee (213) suggests that in the specific case of racial and ethnic disparities in health status, explanations have operated on several distinct models: 1) a racial-genetic model; 2) a health-behavior model; 3) a socioeconomic status model; 4) a psychosocial stress model; and 5) an emerging structural-constructivist model. This last model, which draws on

Dressler (2001) and Bourdieu (1990), focuses on “cognitive representations constructed out of an amalgam of socially shared understandings” (p. 214) and their implications for health. It is particularly concerned with racial folk self-categorization and self- identification.3 Similarly, I analyze shared cultural schemas to help move the literature

2 Epidemiologists often operationalize “context” as including the following: psychosocial factors (social capital), behavioral factors (e.g., tobacco use, physical activity), public health (assessment, policy development, and funding of programs), access to health care services, housing, environmental factors (e.g., hazardous waste), political factors (e.g., community political participation), education (related to socioeconomic status), and employment (including employment opportunities) (see for instance Hillemeier, Lunch, Harper and Casper 2003). 3 Contrast this with Trostle and Sommerfeld (1996) and Nguyen and Peschard (2003), who review the contributions of cultural anthropologists to social epidemiology, including to understandings of the inequality/health nexus.

3 toward a more detailed and complex understanding of the potential effect of culture- related phenomena on health outcomes.

This more recent literature contrasts with earlier treatment of cultural explanations of health outcomes that concentrated on cross-cultural differences and considered societies as strongly bounded by national cultures (e.g., Corin 1994; for a critique of these assumptions, see Gupta and Ferguson 1992 and Lamont and Thevenot 2000).4 In contrast, I use the analytical tools developed by recent scholarship--concepts such as cultural structures, schemas, and repertoires (DeAndrade 19XX; Sewell 2005; Swidler

1986), symbolic boundaries (Lamont and Molnar 2000), and scripts of personhood

(Goffman 1963) that point to the relative availability of cultural schemas across environments. Without fully developing the theoretical implications of this line of work, this chapter does some of the analytical groundwork need to elaborate an explanation that would focus on cultural structures and complement structural, psychosocial, institutional, and biological explanations of health outcomes. Implicit is the notion that cultural scripts mediate some of the psychosocial mechanisms emphasized by influential social epidemiologists such as Marmot (2004) and Wilkinson (2005), who attribute the health gradient to lack of control, autonomy, participation, and relative status. Drawing on earlier work, the chapter aims to document the cultural repertoires or folk classification systems used by various stigmatized populations in narratives concerning what makes

4 To give only a few examples, Wilkinson (2005, p. 219) distinguishes between national “cultures of inequality” in terms of how “macho” they are. For his part, Marmot (2004) suggests that cultural changes affect societies “as a whole,” as if internal differences within the population did not matter. The literature on networks tends to presume that meaning systems reflect networks (for a critique, see Goodwin and Emirbayer (1994)). That the epidemiological literature so readily draws parallels between the behavior of rhesus monkey and that of humans raises issues concerning the rather minimalist causal role it gives to culture as an intervening dimension. For his part, George Davey Smith (2003) suggests that the impact of psychosocial factors is mediated by long-term exposure to domination over the life course, which leads to the embodiment of discrimination. A comprehensive view of the literature on inequality strongly suggests that structural/material domination goes hand in hand with cultural/semiotic subordination (in Bourdieu 1984, for instance. For a review, see Lamont 1989 and Lamont and Small forthcoming).

4 them equal to the dominant group, and what the most effective anti-racist strategies are. It also draws on the literature to speculate about which strategies would be conducive to better health outcomes.

“Everyday destigmatization strategies” (EDS) are relevant for the study of successful societies for at least two reasons. On the one hand, I define successful societies as societies whose members enjoy collective efficacy, or the ability to solve problems collectively (building on Sampson et al. 1997).5 I take the ability to alter the status hierarchy or power dynamics between dominant and subordinate groups within a society to be an indicator of how successful a society is. I also define as more successful societies those that make it possible for people at the bottom of the social hierarchy to develop alternative meaning systems that sustain their sense of self-worth. On the other hand, racism and discrimination have been shown to have a strong impact on health outcomes, such as low infant mortality and high life expectancy, which are also taken as indicators of societal success. Indeed, experiencing exclusion and stigmatization can cause a feeling of worthlessness that affects many mental and physical health outcomes (see Krieger

1999; Williams, Neighbors, and Jackson 2003; and Schnittker and McLeod 2005 for reviews).6 I posit that the ways in which groups interpret and deal with exclusion is a key

5 Sampson (2003, pp. S 58-59) writes: “The term collective efficacy is meant to signify an emphasis on shared beliefs in a neighborhood’s conjoint capability for action to achieve an intended effect, and hence an active sense of engagement on the part of residents. The meaning of efficacy is captured in expectations about the exercise of control, elevating the ‘agentic’ aspect of social life over a perspective centered on the accumulation of ‘stocks’ of social resources.” Applied to a social group as opposed to a neighborhood, the term “collective efficacy” also speaks to the group’s ability to mobilize to achieve collective ends. 6 Preliminary results in the field of child and adolescent brain development point to areas where bio- determinants of health appear to be tied directly to social conditions and more specifically to how individuals experience the social world in which they live. First, the development of the hypothalamus- pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, the body‘s stress-response system, is affected by levels of control, status, dominance, hierarchies, and threats. The level of serotonin production, which helps maintain positive emotionality and reduce depression, is affected by feelings of belonging, participation, and social connection. For its part, the functioning of the frontal cortex, which controls decision-making and the integration of emotion, cognition, and judgment, is tied to feelings of worth and affection and to identity formation (Boyce & Keating 2004; Keating & Hertzman 1999; Suomi 1999).

5 intervening factor in how discrimination affects their members’ mental and physical health. While psychologists have given consideration to the intra-psychological mechanisms with which members of stigmatized groups cope with perceived stigmas, such as privileging in-group comparisons (Clark et al. 1999; Crocker, Major, and Steele

1998; Pinel 1999),7 we know very little of the cultural and social processes by which individuals enhance collective efficacy by, for instance, bridging group boundaries and engaging in what I call “everyday destigmatization strategies,” or attempts to redefine the meaning given to their group by dominant groups.8 Tackling these interpretive frameworks is essential to developing a better understanding of the conditions that generate more successful societies. Once we understand better how individuals navigate the challenges posed to them by the experience of exclusion, we can connect these cultural and psycho social phenomena to broader strategies used by groups, such as those described by Wimmer (2005).9

Exactly how members of stigmatized groups understand and cope with perceived or expected stigmatization remains a largely understudied, yet highly significant, sociological question (Steele and Crocker 1998). Drawing on my previous comparative

7 According to Krieger (2003), there are “5 key pathways through which racism can harm heath, by shaping exposure and vulnerability to the following: 1) economic and social deprivation; 2) toxic substances and hazardous conditions; 3) socially inflected trauma (mental, physical, sexual, directly experienced or witnessed, from verbal threats to violent acts; 4) targeted marketing of commodities that can harm health, such as junk food and psychoactive substances (alcohol, tobacco, and other licit and illicit drugs); and 5) Inadequate or degrading medical care.” This paper is only concerned with the third pathway. 8 For a review of the research on stigma, see Link and Phelan (2001). This literature is primarily concerned with the stigma of mental illness and physical handicaps, and with the health impact of reactions to such “stressors.” To focus on the stigma of phenotype (tied to broader discursive and racial formations) may foster fruitful comparisons between strategies for dealing with various types of stigmas. 9 Wimmer (2005) develops a very fruitful field-theoretic approach to the dynamics of ethnic boundaries. Building on Barth (1994), he considers the institutional, path-dependant, and embodied contexts that limit the extent to which boundaries are malleable. He also offers a useful typology of strategies groups and individuals use to cope with such boundaries (through assimilation, bridging, etc.) which raises many conceptual questions for the present paper (elaborate). He does not consider how self-identification and sense of worth also set limits on challenges to group boundaries.

6 work on North African immigrants in France and African-Americans in the United

States, I define a terrain of inquiry for the study of EDS used by members of stigmatized ethno-racial groups.10 I am particularly concerned with the “everyday” level of destigmatization strategies.11 More specifically, I study narratives concerning how members of stigmatized groups understand similarities and differences between groups, and how they transform the meanings associated with their collective identity to challenge stereotypes about their group and create, enact, or demand new forms of personal interaction on a day-to-day basis. I am concerned with how these narratives draw on broader cultural repertoires made available to members of a society. Ultimately,

I am concerned with how the transformation of collective identity affects the permeability of social and symbolic boundaries across groups, and how these in turn translate into greater feelings of empowerment for marginalized groups–although the question of the impact of boundary work is context related and beyond the scope of this paper.

To study EDS, one can analyze the ways in which members of ingroups and outgroups draw boundaries, or construct similarity and difference between themselves and others in the context of an interview. Drawing on Latour’s (1987) study of the ways scientists establish facts, I focus on the types of evidence individuals use to convince themselves and others that they are equivalent, “as good as,” or “better” than other groups of human beings.12 In this sense, the study of destigmatization strategies can be achieved

10 We use the term “ethno-racial” to refer to groups that are discriminated against due to their phenotypical or ethnic/religious/linguistic identity. 11 “Everyday destigmatization strategies” are here defined as the rhetoric and strategic resources deployed by individual members of stigmatized groups to rebut the notion of their inferiority in the course of daily life. This notion is inspired by Essed’s (1991) notion of “everyday racism.” It also expands on Aptheker’s (1992) definition of anti-racism as rhetoric aimed at disproving racial inferiority. 12 Lamont, Morning, and Mooney (2001) show that North African immigrants living in France respond to French racism by establishing their equality/equivalence, similarity/compatibility, or superiority to the French.

7 by engaging in a more ambitious sociology of equality through empirical analysis of folk classification systems, group boundaries (Lamont & Molnar 2002), commensuration

(Espeland & Stevens 1998), and “orders of worth” (Boltanski & Thévenot 1991). Thus, instead of focusing on responses to discrimination or racism per se, inspired by new developments in cognitive and cultural sociology, cultural anthropology, and cultural psychology (D’Andrade 1995; DiMaggio 1997; Schweder, Minow, and Markus 2002;

Zerubavel 1997), I begin with a general sociology of classification and folk understandings about equality. The larger research agenda takes inspiration from

Goffman (1963), who shows how individuals with discredited or “spoiled” identities take on the responsibility of managing interaction to prevent discomfort in others.

Following Jenkins (1996), I use the term “social identity” to refer to a twin process of group identification and social categorization. On the one hand, individuals must be able to differentiate themselves from others by drawing on criteria of commonality and a sense of shared belonging within their subgroup. This is what Jenkins calls “group identification.” On the other hand, this internal identification process must be recognized by outsiders for an objectified collective identity to emerge. This is what he calls “social categorization.” Our inquiry proceeds from the same point.

Understanding the destigmatizing work that groups produce to affect the meanings given to their group by others (i.e., to their “social categorization”) requires exploring both their group identification—what it means for African-Americans, for instance, to belong to their group (what defines their distinctiveness, their authenticity)—and how it is influenced by social categorization, or the predominant stereotypes that members of the majority group hold toward them.

8 Controversy surrounding the philosophical principles of universalism and multiculturalism qua cultural relativism have become central to theoretical scholarship on the politics of distribution and recognition (Ben-Habib 1996; Fraser 2003; Taylor 1994) and communautarism (Sen 1998; Walzer 1997). Although these literatures are concerned with group boundaries and broad ideas of equality, they have not tackled the topic of everyday destigmatization strategies. Given their philosophical focus, it is hardly surprising that they have considered neither how individuals from stigmatized groups cope with the challenge of creating equality, nor the place of universalism and multiculturalism (or particularism) in this process or in folk classification systems more generally. Filling this significant gap will be one of the theoretical and substantive contributions of research on EDS. It will also complement ongoing research on cultural citizenship (Ong 1996) and citizenship regime (Jenson and Phillips 2002), which consider cultural and policy models of inclusion (also Soss forthcoming).

Another consequential gap pertains to the study of social movements. Social scientists working on social movements, such as the American civil rights movement

(McAdam 1982; McAdam, Tarrow and Tilly 2001; McPherson 1975) or worldwide nationalist movements and anti-racist NGOs (Omi 1993) have analyzed how and why individuals join social movements. Like the more philosophical line of work, they have yet to explore how the frames promoted by social movements connect with the EDS of ordinary people, given that such strategies are only now emerging as an object of inquiry.

Recent authors have analyzed social movements as recognition struggles that involve

“boundary-making activities” (e.g., Herzog 1999; Hobson 2003; Mansbridge and Flaster forthcoming; Merry 1998). Like these authors, I seek to analyze recognition struggles

9 more broadly than political theorists have. However, I also look at destigmatization struggles beyond the confines of social movements (see also Modood 2005). Many other forms of micro-level recognition struggles have to be considered to fully understand social change and the production of social inclusion, just as, in order to understand the greater economic and political inclusion of women over the past decade, one has to consider how women have negotiated more equal relationships in their daily interactions with their significant others, with the members of their extended family, with their coworkers and employers, and with the members of their larger community.

In the literature on anti-racism, there is an emerging consensus that less attention should be paid to philosophical issues and that anti-racist practices deserve more notice.

Recent scholarship has established that there are wide variations in how states create

“culturally responsive policies” toward minority groups, which affect the extent to which they can mobilize or point to institutions to claim recognition and rights (Kymlicka 2004,

Modood 1997). We hope to contribute to this new line of work by exploring how the salience of different kinds of EDS (both at the level of narratives, and as manifested in micro practices) vary across national contexts and how these may be made possible by varying institutional structures. This argument is more fully developed in Lamont and

Bail (forthcoming).

2) Boundaries and Exclusion

First, it is useful to provide some theoretical background on the role of boundaries in processes of exclusion. Boundaries are the lines that include and define some people, groups and things while excluding others (Epstein 1992, p. 232). Group boundaries are usually policed and can only be crossed at a social or symbolic cost, since they have both

10 structural and symbolic components (Lamont and Molnar 2002). Strong social boundaries between groups manifest themselves through socioeconomic status and very unequal patterns of access to jobs, housing, political resources, and so forth. They also manifest themselves in less frequent—and more conflictual—inter-group relationships, instantiated for instance in low rates of intermarriage, high residential segregation, and distinct linguistic patterns (Waters and Jimenez 2005). Strong symbolic boundaries are manifested at the levels of both individual and collective identity, so that across groups

“individuals know at all times which side of the boundary they are on” (Alba 2005, p.

22). They also manifest themselves in strong ethno-racial identification and categorization, in clear inter-group differences in cultural (including religious) practices and tastes, and in high mobilization in social and political movements (Bourdieu 1979,

Modood 1997).

Different national settings can present group boundary patterns that are organized around various dimensions, with religious, linguistic, or ethno-racial components being more or less salient in structuring conflict and political mobilization. Thus, in the United

States strong class boundaries separating the poor from others overlap with strong racial boundaries separating blacks from non-blacks (Ganz 1999), which also translate into clear patterns of residential segregation across racial groups and into low rates of intermarriage (Lamont 2000, Pattilo 2005, Kalmijn 1991). At the symbolic level, whites and blacks experience strong group identification and group categorization (McDermott and Samson 2005), have different patterns of religious affiliation (Emerson and Smith

2000), and are also displaying differentiated patterns of cultural practices and tastes

(Peterson, Bryson, DiMaggio and Ostrower, Lamont, etc.)

11 Because symbolic boundaries are manifested at the level of individual and intersubjective understandings, it is appropriate to draw on interview and narrative data to locate these boundaries and capture how they are understood by social actors situated on both sides of a divide. Symbolic boundaries are not only “words”: they are important in their own right, as definitions of worth are a necessary (but insufficient) condition for the creation of social boundaries (Lamont 1992, chapter 7). Interviews may reveal that groups that are on both sides of the divide may differ in the meaning that they give to the boundary and to the valence of their position within it. For instance, my previous work showed that working class people mobilized distinctive cultural schemas in their evaluation of the importance of money and education as bases for social position than did middle class people.

Social psychologists working on group categorization have been studying boundaries by focusing on the segmentation between “us” and “them.” Social identity theory suggests that “Pressures to evaluate ones’ own group positively through ingroup/outgroup comparison lead social groups to attempt to differentiate themselves from each other” (Brewer 1986). This process of differentiation aims “to maintain and achieve superiority over an outgroup on some dimension” (Tajfel and Turner 1985, pp.

16-17). While these authors understand the relational process as a universal tendency, I am concerned with analyzing aspects of how boundary work is accomplished, by considering what kinds of typification systems, or inferences concerning similarities and differences, groups mobilize to define who they are. In other words, I focus on meaning and cultural schemas that typically escape the attention of psychologists (but see

Markus). I also tie destigmatization strategies to the culture structures or repertoires

12 (Sewell 2005, Swidler 1986) that are available to individuals in particular contexts. For instance, it is important to consider the global diffusion of hip hop culture, which sustains a discourse of cultural resistance, to understand how the destigmatization strategies of the youth and adult populations may vary across national contexts.

Focusing on the impact of repertoires and destigmatization frames adds an important dimension to the explanatory black box of “context” that is still at the center of the explanatory framework elaborated by social epidemiologists. While this literature focuses on the impact of networks, neighborhood effects and policies as elements influencing the impact of “context” on health outcomes, they have yet to factor in how meaning impinges on how the environment “gets under the skin” to create disparities in mental and physical health. Thus, our contribution can be read as an attempt to broaden the traditional explanatory framework that defines the study of the impact on the social environment and health.

3) Case Studies

In my previous work I have considered several cases where members of stigmatized groups work toward the transformation of their collective identity. Although I did not collect data on the impact of destigmatization strategies on the health status of the interviewees, these cases are discussed here to illustrate how destigmatization strategies vary across populations and national contexts and to consider how one may go about studying how they affect health outcomes.

A) Anti-Racism among Black and White Working Class Men

13 The ways in which blacks and whites define personal merit and worthiness plays an important role in how they perceive boundaries between racial groups and in the cultural frameworks they use to talk about the ways in which they are similar and different from other groups. Lamont (2000) examined these frameworks by drawing on

150 in-depth interviews conducted with randomly sampled blue-collar workers and low- status white collar workers living in the New York or Paris suburbs. In the American case, interviews were conducted with 30 blacks and 45 whites concerning a range of topics, but most centrally, the criteria they use to decide who they associate with. This study explored inductively how workers concretely define the boundaries between “us” and “them” and draw the lines between the worthy and the less worthy (on the method used, see Lamont 2000). It showed for instance that workers, black and white, emphasize morality as a criteria of worth, and that black workers readily use religion as a proxy for moral character.13 For instance, Abe Lind, a plumber on Long Island, chooses his friends on the basis of whether they "believe in God, to a large extent, [because] that's who they answer to, and they treat people fairly.” John Lamb, a recycling technician from Georgia who recently moved to the North, describes his friends in the following terms: “We basically have the same background . . . Baptists who have a lot of respect for people, believe in just doing the right thing . . . They are ‘family-going people,’ people you can trust . . . That's not like the average person you meet in the street, that you gotta second guess.”

As they draw the line between the worthy and the less worthy, white workers discuss in what ways they are equal or superior to blacks. They privilege two types of

13 Along these lines, recent surveys find that blacks embrace religious commitments more than whites (Smith and Seltzer 1992, p. 30).

14 arguments to demonstrate that whites and blacks are equal, and these relate directly to earning ability and human nature. They suggest that earning capacity acts as an equalizing force (i.e., “if you can buy a house and I can buy a house, we are equal”).

Thus they view market mechanisms as being the ultimate arbiter of personal value and worth. They also argue that good and bad people are found in all racial groups. In the words of Billy Taylor, a white foreman employed in a cosmetic company, “I could have a problem with you as a black but I could have the same problem if you were white, or green, or yellow, or whatever. People are people. There's good cops, there's bad cops.

There's good whites, there's bad whites . . .” (see also Lamont and Aksartova 2002).

These criteria–earning ability and the universality of human nature–are also central to African-American destigmatization frameworks. However, in contrast to whites, blacks also mobilize a large range of “proofs” that are not used by whites. For instance, they point to their ability to consume to demonstrate their equality with whites.

They also emphasize their competence at work, as evidenced by John, a black recycling plant worker. He says:

Basically it comes down to, once you prove yourself that you’re just as good as

[your white coworkers] . . . that you can do anything they do just as well as

them, and you carry yourself with that weight, then people respect you, they kinda

back away from you. I'm kind of quiet, I just go there, I don't miss a day on the

job, I do what I gotta do, and I'm one of the best throughout the whole plant at

what I do.

15 Black workers also rebut racism by adopting a number of universalistic strategies that are available to all, independent of level of education, income, or civil status. They provide evidence having to do with whites’ and blacks’ shared status as children of God, common physiology, and similar human needs. A black Jehovah's Witness draws on

Biblical themes when he says: "Where has a man come from, but the dust of the earth? If we look at the dust of the earth, we're all of color." Others point to similarly uncontestable facts when they note that “we all spend nine months in our mother’s womb,” that we all have the same red blood running in our veins, or that we all have ten fingers. Yet others point to common needs (we all need to eat and work) and American citizenship to demonstrate their cultural membership, and implicitly, equality between the races within our territorial confines. This view was not expressed among whites and goes unmentioned in survey-based studies of anti-racism, which focuses on structural and individual explanations of inequality (Apostles et al. 1983). The constant reminder of the stigma of race in blacks’ daily life can most likely account for the more expansive character of their repertoire of anti-racist arguments, especially when compared with that of whites.

By looking specifically at how workers define similarities and differences, including racial ones, we are able to identify the presence and absence of different anti- racist strategies that have gone unnoticed to date. For instance, we find that whites and blacks alike use evidence drawn from everyday experience–such as the common-sensical view that human nature is universal--to rebut the notion of racial inequality. Their rhetoric is in stark contrast with that produced in academia, and popularized by school curriculum debates, which stresses multiculturalism or cultural diversity–arguments

16 never used by workers. Perhaps the latter appeals less to workers than to professionals due to their desire to keep the world in moral order and to distinguishing clearly the boundaries between what is permissible and “normal” and what is not. By producing increasingly sophisticated criticisms of essentialism and of available universalistic assumptions about human nature, the social sciences may be moving further and further away from the forms of anti-racism that are most widely available to, and used by, the population at large.

B) The African-American Elite

I have also paid attention to the destigmatization strategies of the African-

American elite (Lamont and Fleming 2005). Using sociometric measures, Taylor and colleagues identified 167 black leaders who were identified by other elite members as belonging to this highly-selective group in the mid-1980s (for details, see Jackson, Thoits and Taylor 1995). These individuals represent a wide range of professional and successful elites, including executives, politicians, military officers, heads of philanthropic organizations, media, entertainment and sports figures, as well as leaders in the field of higher education. We conducted phone interviews with ten of these individuals, including the poet Nikki Giovani, the Congress delegate Eleanor Holmes

Norton, the civil rights lawyer Julius Chambers, the former U.S. Ambassador to South

Africa James Joseph, and Thirman Miller from Hartford, Connecticut, who was the first black mayor of a New England town.14 We drew on their accounts to develop an understanding of the destigmatization strategies adopted by highly successful African-

14 Interviews were coded thematically by the first author. She systematically looked for counter-evidence and used matrix displays (see Miles and Huberman 1994) to reveal patterns in the use of anti-racist arguments. For details, see Lamont (2000), Appendix A.

17 Americans. We also explored how they go about establishing their cultural membership in mainstream America.

Unlike their working class counterparts, members of the African-American elite do not draw on religion to find evidence of racial equality (only one respondent did so).

Instead, they are more likely to ground racial similarity in standards supported by scientific knowledge. It was the case notably for a federal judge who, when asked what is the difference between blacks and whites, simply sternly answered: “phenotype.”

William Howard, a pastor, framed his anti-racist arguments in scientific, rather than religious, language. Noting his belief that blacks and whites are “equal by nature,” he mentions in passing “Professor Cohen, the paleontologist from Harvard, who says that there was more difference within a racial group than there was among racial groups.”

Generally, elite African-Americans emphasize intelligence, competence and education as the most effective destigmatization strategies, frequently identifying these qualities as their ‘ticket’ out of social exclusion. This common theme animates the responses of both Delegate Norton, who coped with racism by showing that “you can out-do them, you can outlearn them, you can be smarter than them” and of James Joseph, an ambassador, who took to heart his mother’s warning that “you have to be twice as smart to get half as good a job.” Elaborating on this theme, Eleanor Norton says she would offer this advice for young African-Americans coping with racism:

I would say ignore white people . . . that will help you lose your race

consciousness and concentrate on yourself and on excellence. . . There’s a way in

which people become intimidated by thinking that they have to prepare

18 themselves for racism. It’s there, much of it you can’t do anything about, except

what our forefathers always told us, outdo them . . .

Betty Lou Dodson suggests a similar strategy of competency, saying:

I think the first thing that you do is to make sure that you know what you’re doing

. . . I always used to say to my staff, knowledge is power. . . So you try to learn

as much as you can about whatever it is you’re doing . . . you master as much

knowledge as you possibly can, whatever situation you find yourself in.

That elite African-Americans put so much emphasis on skills and attributes that are highly valued among the college-educated, as is the case for intelligence, competence, and education, is not surprising. Lamont and Fleming (2005) argued however that these criteria are not standards on the basis of which all African-Americans can establish their equality with whites. The use of these standards reinforces an internal division among blacks between the middle class blacks who are truly equal to whites, and others. This particularistic destigmatization strategy denies cultural citizenship to uneducated blacks and whites alike. As such, it may lead to both a hardening and a weakening of group boundaries. Such simultaneous yet contradictory processes may partly account for why racial boundaries remain so salient in American society despite massive collective and institutional work produced in the last half of the twentieth century to weaken them.

C) Black Marketing Executives

19 A third case study shed light on the destigmatization strategies of yet another group of African-Americans. We analyzed African-American collective identity by focusing on the dynamic between internal identification and group classification in the realm of consumption, considered as a site for identity formation (Lamont and Molnar

2000; Molnar and Lamont 2001). We showed that African-American marketing specialists–approached here as cultural producers--offer cues and cultural models to blacks about how to achieve full social membership. They believe blacks use consumption to signal aspiration to membership in symbolic communities (as citizens, middle class people, etc.). Building on Jenkins (1996), we showed how marketing specialists contribute to the social categorization process, i.e. the production of external definitions of blackness, and how they affect the group identification process, i.e., the production of internal definitions of collective identity. Both aspects can be interpreted as destigmatization work.

More specifically, drawing on a small number of interviews conducted with

African-American marketers specializing in the African-American market segment, this paper shows that marketing specialists 1) shape the meanings of “the black consumer” for the public at large and the advertising industry in particular; 2) promote normative models of collective identity for blacks that equate social membership with consumption.

They also believe blacks use consumption to 3) be recognized as sharing the collective identities most valued in American society (middle class membership in particular); and

4) transform the meanings attributed to the category “black,” enact a positive vision of their distinct cultural identity (e.g., as fashionable or proud black people), and affirm their distinctiveness for themselves and others. We showed that for most of these marketing

20 specialists, mainstream society is equated with “elite society,” perhaps because the acquisition of expensive goods is taken to “objectify” social membership by making it undeniable: these experts view “buying power” as a true mark of personal worth and racial equality, and as a powerful rebuttal to racism. Hence, like elite African-

Americans, marketing specialists provide to most blacks an ambiguous message about social membership: that it is out of reach to most of them. They make no reference to alternative bases of commonality such as common humanity, cosmic destiny, physiology, culture, territoriality, education, religion, or nationality, that were salient in the destigmatization strategies of working class African-Americans. As such, as is the case for the EDS of the African-American elite that we described above, marketing specialists may be strengthening racial boundaries at the same time as they work toward gaining cultural membership.

D) North African Immigrants in France

A fourth case study sheds comparative light on destigmatization strategies, and shows how they are connected to broader cultural repertoires made available to social actors within a specific environment. Lamont (2000) conducted interviews with 30 randomly sampled North African immigrants living in the Paris suburbs. Lamont,

Morning, and Mooney (2001) analyzed these interviews to understand more finely the destigmatization strategies used by North African immigrants. They showed that respondents rebut racism by drawing on their daily experience and on a “particular universalism,” i.e., a moral universalism informed by Islam. Indeed, while French political ideology equates Republican universalism with anti-racism, we find that North

African immigrants develop very different themes when constructing their anti-racist

21 arguments. First, they refute racism by culling evidence of universal equality from their daily lives. Like African-American workers, they point to traits shared by all human beings, such as common morality, human needs, biology, and destiny. Second, they alternatively refer to explicitly particularist and differentialist arguments and to conceptions of moral universalism informed by the Koran in order to disprove their inferiority in the eyes of the French. Thus they seek to demonstrate that: a) all human beings are equal because all races, nations, and religions are equal; b) North Africans are collectively equal or similar to the French; c) interviewees themselves are personally equal to or similar to the French; d) North Africans are collectively superior to the

French; and e) racism can be accounted for by the characteristics of racist people.

The destigmatization strategies of North African immigrants are largely based on a particular conception of universalism—an Islamic-influenced framework—that differs from conceptions of universalism dominant in French political culture: they appeal to a moral universalism borrowed directly from the Koran and from a more diffuse Muslim culture. They value specific forms of moral conduct including “tranquility,” “following a straight path,” altruism toward the poor and the elderly, and rejecting an excess of freedom, which are privileged as undeniable universal virtues. Workers explicitly link these virtues to the five pillars of Islam and to the Koran more generally. This moral universalism is central to what defines a good Muslim and what makes some claim superiority over the French.

This article also points to the positions not taken by our interviewees. Most importantly, respondents do not refer to the principles of the Enlightenment and

Republicanism, or to the right to difference stressed by cultural relativists. These themes

22 are instead central in elite and popular anti-racist rhetoric in France (Lamont 2000). Thus, we refocus attention away from Western types of universalism and toward other forms that the ordinary victims of racism in France uphold.

These findings are accounted for by the cultural repertoire available to North

African immigrants. French civic culture does not appear to have penetrated the immigrant population significantly, as they seem not to have deeply internalized

Republican and Enlightenment principles pertaining to the rule of law, human rights, equality, etc. (note that my respondents are first-generation immigrants and have not undergone socialization in the French educational system). Undoubtedly, the high rate of illiteracy, the uneasy relationship that immigrants have with the educational system, and strong ethnic enclaves influence which cultural tools immigrants use to rebut racism.

Moreover, the strains of Republican universalism to which North African immigrants are exposed may be met with skepticism for several reasons. First and foremost is the

Republican secular vision of the division between state and religion which is antithetical with the Koran; thus, Muslims do not consider secularism to be a universal value

(Etienne 1989, pp. 200-207). Yet French civic culture shapes the anti-racist rhetoric of our respondents through the particular forms of racist discourse to which it gives rise.

French claims that North African immigrants are too “different” to be integrated may spur on the latter’s attempts to find equivalence and similarity across groups. And the

French fear and stigmatization of an Islam that allegedly erases the boundary between church and state might encourage a defense claiming Muslim moral superiority, supported with reference to the apparent deterioration of family and communal bonds in secular society.

23 Overall, Islam appears to provide our respondents with the main cultural tools they use to think about the value of human beings, even if the majority of North Africans do not practice their religion regularly (Tribalat 1995). At the same time, it is likely that the worldview emanating from their religion circumscribes their evaluation. In particular, Muslim specialists have argued that the concept of equality between all human beings has traditionally not been a point of reference within their culture (An-Na’im

1987, p. 21). This might explain why interviewees often appear to be more concerned with establishing equivalence and similarity than equality.

Other factors pertaining to the structural positions of immigrants might help to account for our findings. If immigrants do not claim formal equal status, it is undoubtedly because many perceive their own status to be precarious despite their having legally resided in France for many years or having children who are French citizens.

They have limited occupational mobility and a rate of unemployment higher than that of all other ethnic groups in France (Herzberg 1996), and they are more likely to hold temporary jobs, part-time jobs and jobs in the lowest socio-professional categories

(Boeldieu and Borrel 2000); this situation is likely to dissuade them from taking strong dissenting positions and claiming rights. Moreover, their second-class status may in itself bolster the appeal of a life in which Islam is central: Etienne (1989, p. 75; see also p. 223) suggests that Islam serves several functions, among which is consolation, thus leading him to characterize one aspect of the religion as “Islam-refuge.”15

4) Remaining Questions: Toward a Comparative Analysis of Destigmatization

Strategies and their Impact on Health

15 Khosrokhavar (1996) ascribes other functions of Islam to the lives of second-generation North Africans.

24 If these case studies have defined EDS as an object of inquiry and shed light on some of their manifestations and their connection with available cultural repertoires and broader contexts, we have yet to study their impact on health outcomes. This topic should be informed by recent findings on the impact of racism on health.

The literature has already identified variations in the extent to which exposure to racism and discrimination influences health outcomes (for a review, see Schnittker and

McLeod 2005). Strong racial identification appears to lower the impact of discrimination on health. Indeed, Sellers, Caldwell, Shmeelk-Cone and Zimmerman (2003) showed that strong racial identity predicts more positive psychosocial and physical health. Similarly,

Chatman et al. (2001) found that adolescents who are “culturally connected” to their racial group and think highly of it report the highest level of adjustment. They benefit from a lack of awareness that they could be discriminated against because of their race. In contrast, students who are very aware of discrimination show lower levels of adjustment.

However, Sellers et al. also show that students who are aware of the existence of racial discrimination are better protected against its effects. For their part, Williams and Harris-

Reid (1999) find only relatively weak effects of ingroup identification with mental health.

These studies all suggest that how one relates to one’s racial group, the extent to which one perceives racism, and understands the sources and consequences of discrimination, influences the impact of racism on health. These findings suggest the importance of analyzing more closely the cultural categories through which members of stigmatized groups understand the importance of discrimination. Surely, the strength of group identification is only one aspect of a much broader and complex set of social constructs about the meanings attributed to one’s group.

25 Although in their recent review of literature on “The Social Psychology of Health

Disparities,” Schnittker and McLeod (2005) write that “discrimination has stronger effects on physical health among persons with self-blaming rather than system blaming attributional styles, and among those who accept discrimination rather than challenge it,” the literature does not speak in any detail to what kind of reaction toward racism is most beneficial for health outcomes. One hypothesis is that individuals who actively challenge stereotypes and affirm the value of their group identity are less likely to be at risk of experiencing mental health problems than others. However, under certain circumstances, it is possible that “exit” or “flight” is a more effective strategy than “voice” (to borrow

Hirschman’s (1964) category), i.e., that avoiding confrontation over stereotypes results in better health outcomes, especially when group boundaries are strongly (and violently) policed and permanent. More work on destigmatization strategies is needed before one can begin formulating reasoned hypotheses about their specific impact on mental health in the absence of an available literature. This question is tied to the much broader topic of the relative centrality, strength, salience and importance of various dimensions of collective identity (Ashmore et al. 2004) across situations nested within different contexts. Hypotheses need to be generated concerning how various types of destigmatization strategies affect health outcomes, given variations in these dimensions of collective identities.

We also need to pay more attention to whether individuals in lower status positions develop or draw on alternative understandings of worth, and whether this influences health outcomes. My previous work showed that working class people mobilized distinctive cultural schemas in their evaluation of the importance of money and

26 education as bases for social position compared with middle class people, so as to value more highly their own position (Lamont 1992, 2000). Similarly, Snibbe and Markus

(2005) analyze the cultural models of agency used by individuals with a high school diploma or a college degree and show that while the former group privileged maintaining integrity, adjusting selves, and resisting influence, the latter valued expressing uniqueness and controlling environment. This cultural differentiation creates the necessary conditions for lower-status groups to develop a feeling of self-worth despite being lower in a status hierarchy. This ability to develop a sense of self-worth somewhat autonomously from social position plays an important role in destigmatization strategies, and more generally in the ability of a group to celebrate its cultural distinctiveness. Such celebrations are instantiated by, for example, the cultural affirmation movements that accompanied nationalists movements in Québec, Brittany, and Scotland. In such contexts, symbolic boundaries operate somewhat autonomously from social boundaries and can be attributed causal power in the structuration of group boundaries. We need to explore whether the deployment of alternative ranking systems impacts health outcomes, as well as collective efficacy broadly defined. Extrapolating from the research of Sellers et al (2003) on the impact of (positive) “private regard” for one’s racial group on health outcomes, I expect that the ability to pursue collective goals varies with the collective self-esteem that a group develops about itself, independently of group categorization processes. 16

Thus group identification and destigmatization strategies operate not only at the level of individual psychology, but also in interaction with the cultural templates that are available in the environment in which people live, as we saw with the case of North

16 Include a discussion of Dressler (1991) on positive impact of belonging to church and Sherman James on John Henryism (response to racism of high achieving African-Americans). Locate other such studies.

27 African immigrants living in France. In the social epidemiology literature, much attention has been given to the impact of “psychosocial factors” (House 2001, Marmot 2004), and it is only recently that scholars have been turning toward more systematic consideration of folk classification systems (Dressler et al. 2005). Attention to cultural structures, scripts of personhood, symbolic boundaries, and repertoires of arguments available to individuals remains sparse. As argued by Ashmore, Deux, and McLaughlin-Volve

(2004), contexts are “the general and continuing multilayered and interwoven set of material realities, social structures, patterns of social relations, and shared belief systems that surround any given situation” (p. 103). Contexts have material, social structural and sociopsychological components, but also cultural components. Cultural components tend to be neglected not only by the social epidemiology literature, but also in the poverty and criminality literatures, which tends to reduce cultural explanations of poverty and criminality to explanations having to do with individual cultural orientations (Lamont and

Small forthcoming; Sampson and Bean, forthcoming). Thus, the task at hand is to add specificity and parsimoniousness to our understanding of how cultural templates influence the health gradient, and to explore how various cultural and non-cultural (e.g. psychosocial) factors interact with one another.

To analyze such questions, it may be useful to carry a systematic comparison of the destigmatization strategies of groups located in various national contexts. It would be important to compare how strategies vary with the porousness of the boundaries that separate dominant and subordinate groups across societies. In particular, one may consider how variations in the range and salience of evidence (or criteria such as race, class, status, or moral character) are used by stigmatized groups in different contexts to

28 establish their value in relation to that of dominant majority groups (these would be the our main dependent “variables”). By range, I mean the number and diversity of such criteria. By salience, I mean the extent to which individuals are using given criteria when comparing groups. When considering the salience of criteria, we are especially concerned with the extent to which groups use “universalistic” and “particularistic” criteria of comparison in the context of the interview. We can also consider their narrative of their destigmatization practices. Universalistic criteria are those that can be met by all independent of class, creed, or race (e.g., “shared humanity” or biological similarity).

Particularistic criteria are those that can only be achieved by specific populations: ethnicity, nationality, religion, occupation, and so forth.17 It may be very fruitful to explore variations in the range and salience of arguments used in interviews by members of stigmatized ethno-racial groups across different settings. Based on the comparisons of white and African-American, and white and North African workers (Lamont 2000), I propose that range and salience vary according to the strength of ethno-racial boundaries: the more group members perceive discrimination, the more they are likely to draw on a wider range of evidence to demonstrate their equality. Thus, from a comparative perspective, one can consider whether stronger boundaries lead to more diverse destigmatization strategies. More specifically, the range and salience of types of strategies mobilized by members of stigmatized groups may vary according to the strength of ethno-racial boundaries across societies: those who are more frequently confronted with discrimination are likely to describe themselves as using a wider range of

17 These definitions build on Parsons (2001, p. 82). The Parsonian opposition between “ascription” and “achievement” is also relevant here, although these terms are sometimes at odds with the particularism/universalism dichotomy. For instance, because education is achieved, as opposed to ascribed, it can also be considered universally available, rather than particularistic.

29 destigmatization strategies to combat the daily indignity of misrecognition. This would be the case for Palestinian citizens of Israel, or Catholics in Northern Ireland as compared to francophones Québecois or negros in Brazil, if only because the cost of being a member of these minority groups is much greater for them than it is for their counterparts in

Québec and Brazil. One would also expect that various destigmatization strategies correlate with various health outcomes–in the incidence of depression for instance–such that while fighting discrimination may lead to better health outcomes in contexts of porous boundaries, it may lead to the opposite in contexts characterized by vigorously policed boundaries. How these various potential articulations manifest themselves both at the narrative level, and at the level of the embodiment of domination, remains an empirical terrain ripe for inquiry.

30 REFERENCES

ALBA, Richard. (2005). “Bright vs. Blurred Boundaries: Second-generation Assimilation and Exclusion in France, Germany, and the United States.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 28(1): 20-49.

AN-NA'IM, Abdullahi Ahmed. (1987). “Translator’s Introduction.” The Second Message of Islam, ed. Mahmoud Mohamed Taha. New York: Syracuse University Press. Pp. 1-30

APOSTLE, Richard, Charles Glock, Tom Piazza, and Marigean Suelzle. (1983). The Anatomy of Racial Attitudes. Berkeley, California: University of California Press

APTHEKER, Herbert. (1992). Anti-Racism in U.S. History: The First Two Hundred Years. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

ASHMORE, Richard D., Kay Deaux and Tracy McLaughlin-Volpe. (2004). "An Organizing Framework for Collective Identity: Articulation and Significance of Multidimensionality." Psychological Bulletin 130(1): 80-114

BEN-HABIB, Seyla. (1996). Democracy and Difference: Changing Boundaries of the Political, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

BERKMAN, Lisa F. and Syme Sherman L. (1979). American Journal of Epidemiology 109(2): 186-204.

BOELDIEU, Julien and Catherine Borrel. (2000). “La proportion d’immigrés est stable depuis 25 ans.” INSEE Première, no. 748, November.

BOLTANKSI, Luc and Laurent Thévenot. (1991). De la Justification. Les economies de la grandeur. Paris: Gallimard.

BOURDIEU, Pierre (1984). Homo Academicus. Paris: Editions de Minuit.

------(1984[1979]). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

------(1990). In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

BOYCE, W. Thomas, and Daniel P. Keating. (2004). "Should We Intervene to Improve Childhood Circumstances?" In Diana Kuh & Yoav Ben-Shlomo eds., A Life Course Approach to Chronic Disease Epidemiology. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

31 BREWER, Marilynn B. (l986). “The Role of Ethnocentrism in Intergroup Conflict.” Pp. 88-102 in Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by Stephen Worchel, and William G. Austin. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Publishers.

BRYSON, Bethany. (1996). "Anything But Heavy Metal: Symbolic Exclusion and Musical Dislikes." American Sociological Review 61(5): 884-899.

CHATMAN, C.M., O. Malanchuk, and J.S. Eccles. (2001). Ethnic identity configurations among African American early adolescents. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

CLARK, Rodney, Norman B. Anderson, Vernessa R. Clark, and David R. Williams. (1999). “Racism as a Stressor for African Americans: A Biopsychosocial Model.” American Psychologist 54(10): 805-816.

CORIN, E. (1994). The Social and Cultural Matrix of Health and Disease. Why are Some People Healthy and Others Not? The Determinants of Health Populations. R. G. Evans, M. L. Barer and T. R. Marmor. New York, Aldine Dr Gruyter. 93-133.

CROCKER, Jennifer, Brenda Major, and Claude Steele. (1998). “Social Stigma.” In Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey, eds. Handbook of Social Psychology, Boston: McGraw-Hill.

D'ANDRADE, Roy. (1995). The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

DIMAGGIO, Paul. (1997). “Culture and Cognition.” Annual Review of Sociology 23: 263-87.

DRESSLER, William W. (1991). Stress and Adaptation in the Context of Culture: Depression in a Southern Black Society. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

------, Kathryn S. Oths and Clarence C. Gravlee (2005). "Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to Explain Health Disparities." Annual Review of Anthropology 34: 231-52.

EMERSON, Michael and Christian Smith. (2000). Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

EMIRBAYER, M. and J. Goodwin (1994). "Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency." American Journal of Sociology 6: 1411-54.

EPSTEIN, Cynthia Fuchs. 1992. “Tinker-bells and Pinups: The Construction and Reconstruction of Gender Boundaries at Work.” Pp. 232-256 in Cultivating Differences:

32 Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality, edited by Michèle Lamont, and Marcel Fournier. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

ESPELAND, Wendy N. and Mitchell L. Stevens. (1998). “Commensuration as a Social Process.” Annual Review of Sociology 24: 313-43.

ESSED, Philomena. (1991). Understanding Everyday Racism: An Interdisciplinary Theory. London: Sage Publications

ETIENNE, Bruno. (1989). La France et l’Islam. Paris: Hachette

FRASER, Nancy. (2003). Redistribution or Recognition? A Political-Philosophical Exchange. London: Verso.

GANS, H. (1999). "The possibility of a new racial hierarchy in the twenty-first century United States" The Cultural Territories of Race: Black and White Boundaries, ed. M Lamont. Chicago: University of Chicago Press and New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Pp. 371-90.

GOFFMAN, Erving. (1963). Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

GUPTA, A. and J. Ferguson (1992). "Space, identity, and the politics of difference." Cultural Anthropology 7(1): 6-24.

HERZBERG, Nathaniel. (l996). “Des chercheurs traquent les ‘discriminations ethniques’ dans le monde du travail.” Le Monde, March 12.

HERZOG, Hanna. (1999). "A Space of Their Own: Social-Civil Discourses among Palestinian Israeli Women in Peace Organizations.” Social Politics: International Studies of Gender, State and Society 6: 344-369.

HILLEMEIER, Marianne, John Lynch, Sam Harper and Michele Casper. (2003) "Measuring contextual characteristics for community health." Health Services Research 38(6 part 2): 1645-717.

HIRSCHMAN, Albert. (1964). Exit, Voice and Loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

HOBSON, Barbara. (2003). Recognition Struggles and Social Movements: Contested Identities, Agency, and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

HOUSE, James S. (2001). "Social Isolation Kills, But How and Why?" Psychosomatic Medicine 63:273-274.

33 JACKSON, P.B., P.A. Thoits, and H.F. Taylor. (1995). “Composition of the workplace and psychological well-being: The effects of tokenism on America’s black elite.” Social Forces 74:543-557.

JENKINS, Richard. (1996). Social Identity. New York: Routledge.

JENSON, Jane and Susan D. Phillips (2002). Redesigning the Canadian Citizenship Regime: Remaking the Institutions of Representation. Citizenship, Markets and the State. C. Crouch, K. Eder and D. Tambini. London, Oxford University Press.

KALMIJN, Matthijs. (1991). “Status Homogamy in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology 97 (2): 496-523.

------and Gerbert Kraaykamp (1996). "Race, Cultural Capital, and Schooling: An Analysis of Trends in the United States." Sociology of Education 69: 22-34.

KAWACHI, Ichiro and Bruce P. Kennedy (1999). Health and Social Cohesion. The Society and Population Health Reader: Income Inequality and Health. I. Kawachi, B. P. Kennedy and R. G. Wilkinson. New York, The New Press. 195-202.

KEATING, Daniel P. and Cyde Hertzman. (1999). Developmental Health and the Wealth of Nations: Social, Biological, and Educational Dynamics. New York:The Guilford Press.

KHOSROKHAVAR, Farhad. (1996). “L’universel abstrait, le politique et la construction de l’islamisme comme forme d’altérité.” Une Société Fragmentée? Le Multiculturalisme en Débat. ed. Michel Wieviorka. Paris: La Découverte, pp. 113–51

KRIEGER, Nancy. (2003). "Does Racism Harm Health? Did Child Abuse Exist Before 1962? On Explicit Questions, Critical Science, and Current Controversies: An Ecosocial Perspective." American Journal of Public Health 93(2):194-199.

KRIEGER, Nancy (1999). "Embodying Inequality: A Review of Concepts, Measures, and Methods for Studying Health Consequences of Discrimination." International Journal of Health Services 29(2): 295-352.

KYMLICKA, Will. (2004). “Culturally Responsive Policies.” United Nations Health Development Report: New York.

LAMONT, Michèle. (2000). The Dignity of Working Men: Morality and the Boundaries of Race, Class, and Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

------(1992). Money, Morals, Manners: The Culture of the French and American Upper Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

34 ------(1989). "The Power-Culture Link in a Comparative Perspective." Comparative Social Research 11: 131-150.

------and Christopher Bail. (forthcoming). “Sur les frontières de la reconnaisance: Les catégories internes et externes de l’identité collective.“ Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationale.

------and Mario Small (forthcoming). “Culture Matters : The Role of Culture in Explaining Poverty." The Colors of Povety: Why Racial and Ethnic Disparities Persist, edited by David Harris and Ann Lin. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

------and Crystal Fleming. (2005). “Everyday Antiracism: Competence and Religion in the Cultural Repertoire of the African American Elite.” W.E.B. DuBois Review.

------and Sada Aksartova. (2002). "Ordinary Cosmopolitanisms: Strategies for Bridging Racial Boundaries among Working Class Men." Theory, Culture and Society 19(4):1-25.

------, Ann Morning and Margarita Mooney. (2001). "North African Immigrants Respond to French Racism: Demonstrating Equivalence Through Universalism" Ethnic and Racial Studies. 25(3): 390-414.

------and Virág Molnár (2002). "The Study of Boundaries Across the Social Sciences." Annual Review of Sociology 28: 167-195.

------and Virág Molnár. (2001). "How Blacks Use Consumption to Shape their Collective Identity: Evidence from African-America Marketing Specialist." Journal of Consumer Culture 1(1):31-45.

------and Laurent Thévenot. (2000). Rethinking Comparative Cultural Sociology: Repertoires of Evaluation in France and the United States. London: Cambridge University Press

LATOUR, Bruno. (1987). Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

LINK, Bruce G., and Jo C. Phelan. (2001). "Conceptualizing Stigma." Annual Review of Sociology 27:363-85.

MANSBRIDGE, Jane & Katherine Flaster. (forthcoming). “The Cultural Politics of Everyday Discourse: The Case of a “Male Chauvinist.”

MARKUS, H.R. and S. Kitayama (1991). "Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion and Motivation." Psychological Review 98(224-53).

MARMOT, Michael. (2004). The Status Syndrome: How Social Standing Affects Our Health and Longevity. New York: Times Books.

35 MCADAM, Doug. (1982). Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

------, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly. (2001). Dynamics of Contention. Cambridge University Press.

MCDERMOTT, Monica and Frank L. Samson. (2005). "White Racial and Ethnic Identity in the United States." Annual Review of Sociology 31:13.1-13.17.

MCPHERSON, James M. (1975). The Abolitionist Legacy: From Reconstruction to the NAACP. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

MERRY, Sally E. (1998). “Global Human Rights and Local Social Movements in a Legally Plural World.” Canadian Journal of Law and Society 12: 247-271.

MILES, Matthew B. and Michael Huberman. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

MODOOD, Tariq. (1997). “‘Difference’, Cultural Racism and Anti-racism.” Debating Cultural Hybridity. ed. Pninan Werbner and Tariq Modood. London: Zed Books. pp. 154-172.

------(2005). “Remaking Multiculturalism after 7/7”. Retrieved October 1 2005, from openDemocracy Web site: www.opendemocracy.net/conflict- terrorism/multiculturalism_2879.jsp

NGUYEN, Vinh-Kim and Karine Peschard. (2003). "Anthropology, Inequality, and Disease: A Review." Annual Review of Anthropology. 32:447-74.

OMI, Michael. (1993). "The Los Angeles ‘Race Riot’ and Contemporary U.S. Politics.” In Reading Rodney King/Reading Urban Uprising, ed. Robert Gooding-Williams. New York: Routledge, pp. 97-114.

ONG, Aihwa (1996). "Cultural Citizenship as Subject-Making. Immigrants Negotiate Racial and Cultural Boundaries in the United States." Current Anthropology 37(5): 737- 62.

OSTROWER, Francie. (1995). Why the Wealthy Give: The Culture of Elite Philanthropy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

PARSONS, Talcott. (2001). Toward a General Theory of Action: Theoretical Foundations for the Social Sciences. Edward A. Shils and Neil J. Smelser, eds. London: Transaction Publishers.

36 PATTILO, Mary. (2005). "Black Middle-Class Neighborhoods." Annual Review of Sociology 31:5.1-5.25.

PETERSON, Richard A. and Albert Simkus. (1992). "How Musical Taste Groups Mark Occupational Status Groups." Cultivating Differences: Symbolic Boundaries and the Making of Inequality ed. Michle Lamont and Marcel Fournier. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 152-168.

------and Roger M. Kern. (1996). "Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Ominvore." American Sociological Review 61(5): 900-907.

PINEL, Elizabeth C. (1999). “Stigma Consciousness: The Psychological Legacy of Social Stereotypes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76 (1): 114-128.

SAMPSON, Robert J. (2003). "The Neighborhood Context of Well-Being." Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 46(3): 853-864.

------and Frank Bean (Forthcoming). Cultural Mechanisms and Killing Fields: A Revised Theory of Community-level Racial Inequality. The Many Colors of Crime: Inequalities of Race, Ethnicity and Crime in America. R. Peterson, L. Krivo and J. Hagan. New York, New York University Press.

------, S.W. Raudenbush, and F. Earls. (1997). "Social anatomy of racial and ethnic disparities in violence." Science 277:918-24.

SCHNITTKER, Jason and Jane D. McLeod. (2005). "The Social Psychology of Health Disparaties." Annual Review of Sociology 31:10.1-10.29.

SCHWEDER, Richard, Martha L. Minow, and Hazel Markus. (2002). Engaging in Cultural Differences. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

SELLERS, R.M., C.H. Caldwell, K. Schmeelk-Cone, and M.A. Zimmerman. (2003). Racial ideology and racial centrality as predictors of African American college students academic performance. Manuscript submitted for publication.

SEN, Amartya. (1998). "Universal Truths: Human Rights and the Westernizing Illusion.” Harvard International Review 20(3): 40-43.

SEWELL, William H., Jr. (2005). Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

SMITH, George Davey (2003). Health Inequalities: Lifecourse Approaches. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press.

SMITH, Robert C. and Richard Seltzer. (1992). Race, Class, and Culture: A Study in Afro-American Mass Opinion. New York: State University of New York Press.

37 SNIBBE, Alana Conner and Hazel Rose Markus. (2005). "You Can't Always Get What You Want: Educational Attainment, Agency, and Choice." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88(4): 703-720.

SOSS (get title of paper for Harris/Lin volume)

STEELE, Claude and Jennifer Crocker. (1998). “Social Stigma.” Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan. T. Fiske, & Gardener Lindzey. Boston: McGraw-Hill, pp. 504-553.

SWIDLER, Ann. (t1986). "Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies." American So- ciological Review 51: 273-286.

SUOMI S.J. (1999). Developmental trajectories, early experiences, and community consequences. Developmental health and the wealth of nations: Social, Biological, and Educational Dynamics, ed. D.P. Keating and C. Hertzman New York: Guilford Press. pp. 185-200

TAJFEL, J. and J.C. Turner. (1985). "The social identity theory of intergroup behavior." Psychology of intergroup relations. ed. S. Worchel and W.G. Austin. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, pp.7-24.

TAYLOR, Charles. (1994). Reconciling the Solitudes: Essays on Canadian Federalism and Nationalism, Guy Laforest ed. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

TRIBALAT, Michele. (1995). Faire France: Une Enquête sur les Immigrés et Leurs Enfants. Paris: La Découverte.

TROSTLE, James. A. and Johannes Sommerfeld. (1996). "Medical Anthropology and Epidemiology." Annual Review of Anthropology 25:253-74.

WALZER, Michael. (1997). On Toleration. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

WATERS, Mary C. and Tomás Jiménez. (2005). "Assessing Immigrant Assimilation: New Empirical and Theoretical Challenges." Annual Review of Sociology 31:16.1-16.21.

WILKINSON, Richard G. (2005). The Impact of Inequality: How to Make Sick Societies Healthier. New York and London: The New Press.

WILLIAMS, David R. (1999). “Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Health. The Added Effects of Racism and Discrimination.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 896: 173-188.

38 WILLIAMS, D.R., H.W. Neighbors, and J.S. Jackson. (2003). "Racial/ethnic discrimination and health: findings from community studies." American Journal of Public Health 93:200-8

------and M. Harris-Reid. (1999). "Race and mental health: emerging patterns and promising approaches." A Handbook for the Study of Mental Health: Social Contexts, Theories, and Systems, ed. A.V. Horwitz and T.L. Scheild. New York: Cambridge University Press.

WIMMER, A. (2005). “The Making and Unmaking of Ethnic Boundaries. A Field- Theoretic Approach." Paper presented to the Study Group on Inclusion and Exclusion in an Expanded Europe, Center for European Studies, Harvard University.

ZERUBAVEL, E. (1997). Social Mindscapes: An Invitation to Cognitive Sociology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

39

Load more

  39

Copy Link