Greek Upward Mobility and Greek Bootblacks Assignment | Essay Help Services

My topic is Greek upward mobility and Greek childhood labor in the US. Childhood labor was associated with the earlier stages of Greek immigration. The challenge is to describe the process of how these children achieved upward mobility and identify a few of them. It will be fascinating if you could identify Greek bootblacks who moved up the social ladder. The paper must have a timeline of the early 1900s greek arrival in U.S, what was their purpose how did they adjust, and how did the childhood labor come in to place, you can talk about the padrone system. How did the children manage to live and what were their conditions. Paper length: 10 pages double space (excluding Bibliography). For citations (Bibliography and Notes) follow the Chicago Manual Style

International Journals
FIRST AND SECOND GENERATION GREEKS IN CHICAGO: AN INQUIRY INTO THEIRSTRATIFICATION AND MOBILITY PATTERNS
Author(s): George A. Kourvetaris
Source: International Review of Sociology, Vol. 1, No. 1 (MARCH, 1971), pp. 37-47
Published by: International Journals
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41495912
Accessed: 31-03-2020 21:39 UTC
REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:https://www.jstor.org/stable/41495912?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a widerange of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity andfacilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttps://about.jstor.org/terms
International Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
International Review of Sociology
This content downloaded from 128.228.0.65 on Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:39:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
FIRST AND SECOND GENERATION GREEKS IN CHICAGO 37
Saxena, Anant P.
1968 “System Effects on Innovativeness Among
Indian Farmers.” Ph.D. Thesis, East
Lansing: Michigan State University.
Scheuch, E.
1965 “Gross-National Comparisons Using Aggregate
Data: Some Substantive and Methodological
Problems.” Pp. 148-167 in
R. Merrit and S. Rokkan (eds.), Comparing
Nations. New Heaven: Yale University
Press.
Selvin, Hanan C., and W. O. Hagstrom.
1963 “The Empirical Classification of Formal
Groups.” American Sociological Reveiw
28: 399-411.
Tannenbaum, Arnold S., and Jerald G. Bachman.
1964 “Structural Versus Individual Effects.”
American Journal of Sociology (July) :
585-595.
van den Ban, Anne Willem.
1960 “Locality Group Differences in the Adoption
of New Farm Practices.” Rural Sociology
25 : 308-320.
FIRST AND SECOND GENERATION GREEKS IN CHICAGO:
AN INQUIRY INTO THEIR STRATIFICATION AND
MOBILITY PATTERNS1
George A. Kourvetaris*
Patterns of ethnic stratification and mobility are analyzed, between two generations of Greeks in Chicago area . This analysis is based on data collected from a random sample of eighty-nine couples
drawn from two Greek-American parishes and from the directory of the Hellenic Professional Society
of Illinois. Findings indicated that the function of ethnic stratification and mobility within the Chicago
Greek- American ethnic community becomes attenuated with the oncoming of the second generation
Greek- Americans. Social status was transformed from an ethnocentiic focus and orientation in first generation to one which transcends ethnic boundaries in the second generation. Likewise , indices
of social mobility were found to be more meaningful when one views them as aspects of the larger
American occupational and class structure rather than as aspects of ethnic stratification .
The tantiv et asnttuivdey a rareae ao fo fin eqtuhiriyn iicn o tfh ein Uqnuiitreyd groups in the as a United subs-
States has been the mainstream of
much research and theory by social scientists.
The concept “ethnic groups” or
“ethnicity” has been described interchangeably
with such terms as “aliens,”
“immigrants/5 “minorities,” “races,”
“refugees,” and the like. In this paper
ethnic groups will be defined in terms of
national, cultural, racial, or religious
origins, or even a combination of these
(Gordon, 1964).
Two major principles seem to contribute
to the formation of an ethnic group or
ethnic community. First, there is a selective
receptivity on the part of the Anglo-
Saxonic majority, and second, there is a
partial closure by the minority. Thus, it has
been suggested (Warner, 1945) that
“ethnic minorities typically become partially
or wholly assimilated into the larger
American society as a result of the opportunities
for class mobility open to these
members. As members of ethnic groups
seek and achieve class mobility, they tend
to detach themselves from their ethnic
identification and therefore lessen their
cohesiveness and distinctive identity.”
It is the purpose of this paper to analyze
the dimensions of ethnic stratification and
mobility of first and second generation
xThis is a condensed paper based on the author’s
unpublished M.A. thesis, Roosevelt University,
Chicago, Illinois (1965). I am indebted to Professor
Ferdinand Kolegar, Roosevelt University, for his
invaluable comments and intellectual stimulation
and to Professor Catherine D. Papastathopulos,
Northern Illionois University, for her useful advice
and criticism. I want to thank my graduate assistant,
Betty Dobratz, my beloved wife, Toula.
♦George A. Kourvetaris, Ph.D., is an Assistant
Professor of Sociology at Northern Illinois University,
DeKalb, Illinois, U.S.A.
This content downloaded from 128.228.0.65 on Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:39:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
38 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY
Greeks in Chicago. More specifically, an
effort will be made, first, to compare and
analyze the dimensions of intraethnic
stratification between the two generations
in terms of social status and political
influence indices, and second, to analyze
the patterns of intergenerational mobility
in terms of occupational, educational,
residential, and acculturation changes
between the two groups.
Greek Immigration and the Chicago Greek-
American Community
Early Greek immigration to the United
States began at the turn of the 20th century.
Greeks, along with other immigrant
groups from Southern, Eastern, and Central
Europe made up the “late immigrant”
vis-a-vis the “old” ones from Northwestern
Europe. The overwhelming majority of the
“early Greek immigrants” can be designated
as working or lower economic class
immigrants. For instance, it has been reported
(Fairchild, 1911:3, 85; Xenides,
1922:81; Saloutos, 1964) that early Greek
immigrants as a rule were poor and
illiterate, came primarily from agricultural
communities, and consisted of young males.
Most Greek immigrants came from the
Southern parts of Greece where the terrain
is more mountainous and rocky, and the
land is hard to cultivate, making it difficult
to earn a living. The opposite is true
of the Northern and Central regions of
Greece where the land is more fertile, and
consequently, migration is less.
Arriving in America, the Greek immigrant
brought with him a way of life that
was folk-oriented, ethnocentric, and traditional.
With the oncoming of the second
generation, this ethnic outlook was challenged.
Culture conflict between parents
and children, or what Professor Yinger
(Arnold (ed.), 1970:124) calls “contraculture,”
was inevitable. Out of this
generational contraculture two major
types of Greeks emerged, namely the
“traditionalists” and the “environmentalists”
(Saloutos, 1964:312).
The traditionalists attempted to rear
their Greek-American born offsprings as
those reared in Greece. The parental
group proved unyielding. These traditionalists
usually were found in cities with
large Greek communities. They iñsisted
upon preserving their ethnic institutions,
particularly those pertaining to religion,
language, endogamous marriage, and
family. They tried to socialize their children
in the traditional Greek mores and
folkways. Thus, they attempted to convince
their children of the “mystique” of
their Greek ancestry, warned them against
the dangers of intermarriage, and made an
effort to instill in them a sense of Greek
“ethnic consciousness” and “peoplehood.”
On the other hand, the environmentalists
(known also as the “assimilationists”)
believed that their children should be
raised as Americans., but wanted them to
retain membership in the Greek Orthodox
Church, keep their Greek names, and
be able to communicate in the Greek
language. These Greeks felt that the assimilation
process, a fusion of cultures and
nationalities into an Anglo-American
culture, could not be curtailed but only
temporarily delayed. The environomentalists
were more realistic and experienced
less conflict with their offspring. They
were more cognizant of the fact that
powerful social and cultural forces operate
in American society which exert an unprecedented
influence upon their offspring
and compel them toward Anglo-Saxonic
conformity.
In general, first generation Greeks or
early Greek immigrants, particularly the
traditionalists, were faced with major
difficulties in carrying out their intent to
socialize their children (second generation)
in the Greek ways of life. These difficulties,
along with their fear of losing control over
their children, were intensified when the
children came into contact with the larger
American society, particularly when they
were of school age, began working, and
became of marital age. Parenthetically,
This content downloaded from 128.228.0.65 on Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:39:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
FIRST AND SECOND GENERATION GREEKS IN CHICAGO 39
similar patterns can be observed between
the late or postwar Greek immigrants and
their children. In the latter case, one can
observe a similar cycle to that of early
Greek immigrants.
Greeks in the United States in general,
and the Chicago Greeks in particular, can
be designated as an ethnic group or ethnic
community within the mosaic of multiethnic
groups or ethnic communities in the
larger American society. The majority of
Greek immigrants settled in big cities and
established ethnic communities and ethnic
institutions. From the very beginning of
immigration and ethnic life, Chicago has
been characterized as a social laboratory
and prototype of ethnic community life.
It has always been one of the most important
Greek settlements and one of the oldest
Greek communities in the United States
(Fairchild, 1911:123). In a real sense,
Greek immigration to the United States
coincided with the beginning of the
Chicago Greek community. By 1938, the
Chicago Greek community was the largest
in the United States with a population of
over 60,000. At the present time, although
no exact figures exist, some estimate the
Greek and Greek-American population to
be between 150,000 to 250,000 in the
Chicago area alone.
Method, Data and Sources of Sample
In this inquiry, three major sources were
utilized to obtain our data. Using the membership
lists of two Greek parishes (St.
Andrew’s and St. Basil’s) which represented
various levels of socioeconomic and
generational characteristics, and the
membership list (1965) of the Hellenic
Professional Society of Illinois, one hundred
couples from the first and second
generation were obtained. From the total
one hundred couples selected for interviewing,
forty-six of the first and fortythree
of the second generation actually
were interviewed during the months of
February, March, and April of 1965.
The interview schedule included questions
on social background and economic and
political characteristics.
The first generation included married
couples who had been in the United States
for at least a chronological generation
(thirty-five to forty years), while the second
generation included the eldest married
sons who were at least thirty-five years of
age. For the present analysis, the male
spouse in both generations had to be of
Greek extraction.
A five-point scale was designed to measure
the three variables of social status,
political influence, and acculturation
Weights from one to five were assigneed to
those items designed to determine one’s
relative social class standing, political
influence, and degree of acculturation.
Then, the mean score for each respondent,
as well as the cumulative scores for each
generation, were obtained, and compared
for the two generations for each of the
three variables. The higher the cutnulative
mean score for each of the three variables
for each couple or generation, the higher
was its social standing, political influence,
and acculturation.
Generational Patterns of Stratification and
Mobility: Concepts , Hypotheses , and
Findings
In this analysis the concepts of stratification
and mobility are defined as the differentiation
and ranking between and within
the first and second generation Greeks
in terms of economic (class), social (status),
and political (power) indices. More specifically,
the concept of stratification refers
to the intragenerational ethnic stratification
or ethnic ranking of each generation
into higher or lower social status groups;
while social mobility is operationalized as
the dynamic aspect of stratification or the
intergenerational changes of occupational,
residential, and educational indices
between father and son (first and second
generations) .
In general, the hypothesis was that the
social standing (prestige) of first generation
This content downloaded from 128.228.0.65 on Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:39:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
40 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY
Greeks was attenuated with the oncoming
of the second generation. Thus, one would
except that first generation Greeks were
more likely to achieve horizontal intragenerational
mobility, whereas second generation
Greeks were more likely to achieve
horizontal as well as vertical mobility both
between and within generations. “Horizontal”
mobility refers to the direction of
occupational change from one social position
or occupational role to another of
similar social standing, while “vertical”
mobility refers to the movement from one
social position to another of different social
standing.
More specifically, the following hypotheses
were tested along the dimensions of
stratification and mobility;
1. Social Standing: Members of the first
Table 1 – Social glass Equivalents for I.S.C.* Ratings between first and
second Generation Greek Couples in Chicago
Percentages of Social Class Between First And Second
Generation Greek Couples
Social Class Standing
First Second
Generation (N) * * Generation (N)
Upper middle .. .. 16 (7) 42 (18)
Lower middle . . . . 76 (35) 51 (22)
Upper lower . . . . 8 (4) 7 (3)
Total . . 100 (46) 100 (43)
Source: Adapted from W. Lloyd Warner Measurement of Social Status. New York of Warner’s six social class classification scheme * The I.S.C. (Index of Status Characteristics) occupation, source of income, house type, three, and two, respectively. Each of the from a rating of 1, very high status ** Number of cases on which percentages 2. Political Influence: Political influence
changed from the first generation second generation. That is, members first generation tended to find their primarily within their own community, while members of the generation increasingly sought theirs of the ethnic community. The on political influence was confirmed.
generation found (prestige) primarily ethnic community, the second generation theirs outside of it. confirmed. “Social first generation found to be a dimension stratification, while among
members of the second generation, it was
viewed more as a dimension of the
American stratification system at large.
Thus, the overall scale score of the second
generation (3.3) was higher than
that of the first generation (2.4). However,
Warner’s I.S.C. (Index of Status Characteristics),
revealed that couples of both
generations displayed lower-middle class
styles of life. (See Table 1.)
However, the overall scale scores on the
indices of voting, party affiliation, and
associational membership did not yield
significant differences between the two
generations (first generation scores of 2.9,
second generation, 3.1). Although results
indicated that both generations exerted
little or no political influence in the larger
Chicago community, certain members of
This content downloaded from 128.228.0.65 on Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:39:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
FIRST AND SECOND GENERATION GREEKS IN CHICAGO 41
the second generation Greeks recently have
begun to experience a breakthrough in the
municipal, county, state, and even the
national levels of politics. For example, to
mention only the most important political
positions on the state and national levels,
one must include: Vice-President of the
United States Spiro Agnew (Anagnostopoulos),
United States Congressmen Dr.
John Brademas and Peter Kyros, and
Superintendent of Public Instruction of the
state of Illinois, Dr. Michael Bakalis.
3. Occupational Mobility: A shift from
blue collar to white collar and from entrepreneurial
to professional occupations
took place from the first generation to the
Table 2 – Type of Occupation of first and second Generation Greek
men in Percentages
First Generation Second Generation
Type of Occupation* Men (N = 46) Men (N=43)
Percentages Percentages
Professional . . . . . . 6 (3) 33 (14)
Proprietary . . . . . . 54 (25) 16 (7)
White Collar .. .. ..2 (1) 28 (12)
Blue Collar .. .. .. 34 (15) * 16 ,{7)
Not Ascertained . . . . 4 (2) 7 (3)
Total .. 100 (46) 100 (43)
♦Adapted from Alba Edwards, “Occupational The Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1958), p. 54 service businesses ; i.e., restaurant, tavern clerical type occupations and blue collar (c) The majority of spouses (two-in both generations, were found housewives.
4. Residential Mobility: The growth to
adulthood of the second generation was
accompanied by an exodus from less desirable
residential areas to more desirable
ones. The hypothesis on residential
mobility was not strongly supported. An
alternative hypothesis was suggested;
irrespective of generation, the higher the
socio-economic status of the Greek couple,
the greater their spatial mobility from a
second generation. The hypothesis on occupational
mobility was confirmed. Some
of the specific findings were:
(a) First generation men tended to be proprietors
of service enterprises especially
in the food industry, i.e., restaurateurs
(primarily snack shops), tavern operators,
owners of grocery stores, etc.,
or were engaged in semi-skilled blue
collar occupations (and service occucupations)
such as barbers, cooks,
waiters.
( b ) Second generation men were found
primarily in professional, white collar,
and skilled blue collar occupations
(see table 2).
less favorable residential area to a mpre
favorable one. Greekx couples were more
likely to achieve intra generational rather
than intergenerational residential mobility.
Some more specific findings were:
(a) Members of either generation were
more likely to achieve intragenerational
rather than intergenerational
residential mobility.
( b ) First generation couples had moved
away from areas of first settlement
commonly known as “Greek town” to
ones more favorable and integrated.
This content downloaded from 128.228.0.65 on Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:39:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
42 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY
(c) While a number of second generation
couples were found to live close to first
generation families, the former tended
to move in greater numbers to the outskirts
of Chicago and to the suburbs.
(d) Second generation couples used the
Greek churches found in the suburbs
as a frame of residential reference more
than their fathers had before them.
Thus, the higher the socioeconomic
status of the couple, the greater was
the tendency to live away from the
Greek parish and the greater was the
assimilation into the American social
structure.
Table 3 – Greek and American Schooling* of first and second Generation
Greek Couples in Percentages
First Generation Second Generation
Couples (N=46) Couples (N=43)
Husband ‘Wife Husband Wife
Type of Schooling Gr. Am. Gr. Am. Gr. Am. Gr. Am.
Percentages Percentages
Some grammar school education 60 54 76 36 50 2 77
Grammar school graduate 21 6 8 .. 11 .. ..
Some }iigh school and high . . . . . . . . 30 . . 46
school graduate
Collfegfe graduate . . 8 . . . . . . 60 . . 49
Not ascertained 19 32 16 64 39 8 23 5
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100. 100
,* Schooling in both Greek and American educational each spouse separately in both generations.
Looking at table 3, one notes that by and
large, first generation couples had some
grammar school education only ] By contrast,
over fifty per cent of the second
generation husbands and almost fifty per
cent of their wives were college graduates.
Ь. Acculturation : Members of the first
generation resisted acculturation, whereas
members of the second generation welcomed
it. The hypothesis on acculturation
was confirmed. A lower acculturation
score was found among members of the first
generation (mean scale score, 2. 03) than
5. Educational Mobility: Formal education
beyond the primary level (either
Greek or American) was minimum or
nonexistent among first generation members,
whereas second generation members
increasingly pursue social class mobility
through the educational facilities of higher
learning. The hypothesis on educational
mobility was confirmed. Educational
achievement of both generations was ascertained
on the basis of formal years of
schooling -• both in Greek and American
educational institutions. Table 3 gives the
percentages of Greek and American
schooling of both generations.
among the second generation (mean scale
score, 3.Q7). However the lower acculturation
score of the first generation than
the second generation does not indicate
that the former remained indifferent or
completely detached from the American
ways of life, particularly those pertaining
to materialistic aspects of American culture.
Discussion and Analysis
In view of the previous findings, two
questions can be asked: (1) What are the
This content downloaded from 128.228.0.65 on Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:39:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
FIRST AND SECOND GENERATION GREEKS IN CHICAGO 43
significance and implications of these findings
concerning first and second generation
Greeks in general? and 2). To what
extent are these findings consistent with
previous studies dealing with Greeks and
other ethnic groups in various parts of the
United States ?
It has been argued in this paper that
social stratification and mobility in the
first generation were perceived more in
terms of an ethnic economic stratification.
This, in turn, means that the first generation
Greeks were more concerned with
their economic security than with the prestige
or social status of their occupations.
Economic success in the business world
was viewed as an index of social standing in
the ethnic community, but economic
success in the eyes of one’s ethnic community
did not necessarily provide social
acceptance in American society at large,
or what Professor Lenski refers to as ť ‘status
crystallization.”
Early Greek immigrants, like other immigrant
groups, were socially more comfortable
and psychologically more secure
within their own ethnic community and
preferred their own distinctive modes of
life. In America, says Professor Gordon,
“Each ethnic group has its own network of
cliques, clubs, organizations and institutions
which tend to confine the primary
group contacts of its members within the
ethnic enclave” (1964: 110-111). In a
sense, the social space and network of
relationships of the first generation Greeks
were confined within their own kinship
group. They were aware of their limitations
in education. Thus, they attempted to
compensate for this lack of education by
working very hard for very long hours.
Although the first generation pursued
manual or semi-manual occupations, they
did not continue to be laborers. Despite
their meager economic and educational
resources, a substantial number of them
owned and managed their own places of
business. They developed a “style of life”
which was both acquisitive and frugal.
Economic security per se, ràther ‘ than
life style, was the primary concern of the
first generation. Only a few of them pursued
social class mobility through educational
facilities in the United States; for thè
majority, this mobility seemed ân unattainable
and remote goal.
Similar observations can be made with
respect to political influence of the first
generation. Politics is a vehicle of social
class mobility and power. For example, the
Irish have achieved mobility and status
through the channel of politics. However,
in the first generation Greeks, politics and
political influence as vehicles of social
class mobility were almost entirely absent.
The first generation resisted acculturation
and tended to be more ethnocçntric
for some time. It was forced to learri and
adopt American ways, particularly as it
came into interaction or engaged in busi-1
ness transactions with Americans. How^
ever, first generation Greeks were not
accepted on the structural and institufciotial
levels of the American social structure nor
did they feel the need for such acceptance^
Thus, first generation Greeks actualized
their dreams and aspirations and achieved
economic mobility up to a certain point.
They came to the United States as unskilled
workers but managed to save their
earnings. It must be stressed, however,
that economic mobility through business in
the first generation was facilitated by the
entrepreneurial ar small business orientation
of American society at the turn of the
century and by the need for unskilled or
semi-skilled labor. Of course, this was
less true following World War II due to
increased industrialization, bureaucratization,
and specialization in the
American occupational structure.
In contrast, this paper has suggested that
social stratification and mobility patterns
in the second generation were looked upon
not as dimensions of ethnic economic
stratification and mobility- but rather as
broader aspects of stratification and mobility
in the American social” structure.
This content downloaded from 128.228.0.65 on Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:39:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
44 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY
Although in many respects second generation
Greeks shared similar experiences
with first generation Greeks, the former
were more concerned with “social acceptability”
and “social status” by their peers
and other Americans than with seeking
acceptance from within their ethnic community.
Members of the second generation
adopted only those “Greek ways” which
seemed to them compatible with “American
ways.” They emerged as a new cultural
hybrid with elements of both a Greek
subculture and American culture. “Americanization”
as a way of life exerted far
greater influence upon them than
“Hellenism,” as the latter came to be
known through the ethnic processes of
family and community life. Sooner or later
members of the second generation realized,
as did their parents, that one of the principal
avenues of getting ahead and raising
their social status was to pursue an education.
While some members of the second
generation followed their father’s occupation,
it must be emphasized that the majority
pursued social mobility through
channels other than service occupations.
In this respect, the second generation
achieved both intragenerational and intergenerational
mobility. In other words, the
first generation changed from one job to
another but within the same occupational
category, whereas the second generation
achieved both horizontal and vertical
mobility. In the last analysis, however, such
changes were expected and were not
unique to the Greeks alone.
A number of general studies on the
Greeks and other ethnic groups in the
United States have dealt with stratification
and mobility patterns. In his book,
Greeks in America (1913), Burgess gave
account of anticipated business progress of
first generation Greeks and predicted the
growth of a professional and business class
of second generation Greeks. The author
stressed the potentialities of the Greeks and
their aspirations and drive for achievement.
Referring to the Chicago Greeks in the
early quarter of the twentieth century, the
author stated, “During the short time. the
Greek has been in Chicago, he has already
established his reputation as a shrewd
businessman” (1913:131).
Warner and Srole (1945) conducted an
empirical comparative study of seven
ethnic groups, the Irish, Jews, Armenians,
French-Canadians, Greeks, Russians, and
Poles, in which they tried to compare
these ethnic groups to native or old generation
Americans (Anglo-Saxons) on the
basis of ethnic stratification and mobility
or occupational, residential, and social
class patterns. Some of their findings
pertinent to the Greeks can be summarized
as follows:
(a) In their first ten years of settlement, all
ethnic groups except the Irish achieved
higher occupational positions than
residential ones.
( b ) All ethnic groups eventually and progressively
approached each other in
the scale of occupational and residential
indices with the exception of the
Jews.
(i с ) Greeks coincided occupationally with
the Irish and were below only the
native Americans and the Jews.
(d) Residentially, Greeks were below the
Jews, native Americans, Irish, and
Armenians, but above the Poles,
Russians, Italians and French-Canadians.
(e) In terms of social class index, the
Greeks were found to be low in the
scale, but above the Poles and Russians
(1945: 40-96 passim).
Rosen (1959) conducted a somewhat
similar interethnic study of six ethnic
groups and their achievement orientations.
Rosen’s hypothesis was that “vertical
mobility rates among the ethnics are a
function of their dissimilar psychological
and cultural orientations toward achievement.”
According to Rosen, there are
three main components of the “achievement
orientation”:
This content downloaded from 128.228.0.65 on Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:39:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
FIRST AND SECOND GENERATION GREEKS IN CHICAGO 45
(a) “Achievement motivation,” which
provides the internal impetus to excel
in situations involving standards of
excellence.
( b ) Achievement or value orientation,
which implements “achievementmotivation”
behavior and the “desire
for social status.”
(i с ) “Culturally influenced educationaloccupational
aspiration levels.”
Equipped with this conceptual model,
Rosen conducted 427 interviews with
“pairs of mothers and their sons” in sixtytwo
communities in four states in the
Northeast. They included French-Canadians,
Italians, Greeks, Jews, Black
Americans, and White Protestants. On the
basis of data provided by certain batteries
of questions, Rosen (1959:60) then concluded
that Greeks place great emphasis
on achievement, training, ánd independence.
The Greek child (third generation)
is trained to be self-reliant and is exhorted
to be a “credit to his group” in the Greek
community. There are more middle-class
persons among Jews, Greeks, and Protestants
than among Italians, French-
Canadians and Blacks. The culture of
White Protestants, Jews, and Greeks stands
out as more individualistic, activistic, and
future-oriented. Social class was found to
be related to educational and vocational
aspirations among Jews, Protestants,
Greeks, and Blacks. For each social class,
these groups had similar educational and
vocational aspirations which also were
higher than those of Italians and French-
Canadians.
One must be very cautious and not
make unwarranted generalizations. These
studies were based on limited samples
which are not always representative of the
entire population being studied.
Conclusion
In this paper an effort was made to
examine certain patterns of intragenerational
and intergenerational mobility and
stratification between first and second
generation Greeks in Chicago. Social
stratification was not expected to be
pronounced among the first generation for
psychological rather than structural reasons
even though distinctions were present.
Distinctions and styles of life were fused so
that the group could stay together. Social
stratification and mobility became more
meaningful and pronounced as the Greek
community expanded, and many of the
Greeks engaged in business, acquired property,
and became more socially accepted
within the larger American society.
This change was accelerated with the
coming of age of second generation Greeks.
In his book, Greeks in America , Saloutos
heralds the contemporary professional,
commercial, and intellectual prominence
of Greeks in the United States which he
characterizes as “impressive” and the
begining of an “era of respectability” for
the Greeks. Saloutos aptly describes the
social mobility and status of Greeks in the
United States with these words: “We are
on the threshold of a new generation of
Greeks who have carved successful niches
in the business and professional world and
have moved to new positions of influence.
They are on the way to a new status in
American society. The immigrants of yesteryear
had established sobriety, industry,
and integrity” (1964:378).
A somewhat similar observation was
made by an American sociologist over a
generation ago who vividly predicted and
described the economic mobility of the
Greek immigrant. In his words: “Once his
foot is on the first step, the saving and
commercial minded Greek climbs from
curb to stand, from stand to store, from
little store to the chain of stores to branch
stores in other cities. Such are the stages
of his upward path” (quoted in Xenides,
1922:81).
Although the foregoing observations
were the atypical rather than the typical
paths of the majority of members in both
generations, these observations demonstrate
the “entrepreneurial ethos” and the
This content downloaded from 128.228.0.65 on Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:39:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
46 INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY
“quest” for à new era of “social status”
and “respectability” of the Greeks in
American society. First generation Greeks
were more likely to view social status and
mobility as dimensions of the Greek intraethnic
system of stratification, whereas
second generation Greeks tended to perceive
social status and mobility from a
larger frame of reference of the American
social class structure.
Despite their strong ethnic identity, the
first generation Greeks were not altogether
detached from the American scene. As
business entrepreneurs, they had to extend
their horizons to Greek community
affairs. They kept abreast of the non-
Greek social environment through the
ethnic and non-ethnic mass media. As
citizens they exercised their privilege to
vote, and they were proud of their material
achievement. Some became more successful
than others. Those who were less fortunate
projected their aspirations and
dreams on to their children. As a group,
the first generation Greeks achieved a
relative social and economic mobility in
the sense that they started from the bottom
of the stratification pyramid and in a period
of fifty years or so, reached a lowermiddle
class status. Their status almost
exclusively was viewed in terms of economic
or business success within the
ethnic community.
By contrast, second generation Greeks
had a number of advantages over members
of the first generation. To begin with, the
former did not experience the “culture
shock” as did their parents. While both
generations quite often became the targets
of ethnic prejudice and discrimination,
second generation Greeks did not accept
second rate citizenship. They, along with
members of other ethnic groups, demanded
and strove for equal treatment and opportunity.
Furthermore, by and large,
second generation Greeks grew tip in a
well-knit family and ethnic subculture
where some ethnic institutional forms
contributed to the stability òf the family,
particularly those pertaining tò courtship,
marriage, linguistic patterns, religion,
and respect for parents and elders. Of
course, the ethnic cultural patterns were
viewed by the second generation both as
assets and liabilities for their social mobility
and social acceptance in American society.
Lastly, the values of aspiration, hard work,
and the Greek philotimo (self-esteem) were
implanted in members of the second
generation by their parents. Achievement
and success were a pride and credit- not
only to their immediate families and kin,
but also to the entire Greek community. :
Thus, the function of social stratification
and social mobility within the Greek
ethnic community began to lose its appeal
and became attenuated when the second
generation Greek-Americans attained
adulthood. Social status was transformed
from an ethnocentric focus and intraethnic
orientation to transcultural or American
patterns of stratification. Likewise, indices
of social mobility became more functional
and meaningful when they were viewed in
terms of the American mobility and occupational
structure as a whole.
In short, achievements of the immigrants
of yesteryear became the point of
departure and a frame of reference for
social class mobility in the second generation.
WThether or not the third generation
will accelerate or retard the upward
vertical social class mobility of the Greeks
in the United States remains to be seen.
References
Abbott, Grace.
1909 “A Study of the Greeks in Chicago.”
American Journal of Sociology 15 (November):
379-393.
Arnold, David O. (ed.)
1970 The Sociology of the Subculture. Berkeley,
California : The Glendessary Press.
Bendix, Reinhard, and Seymour Lipset.
1966 Class, Status , and Power: Social Stratification
in Comparative Perspective. New York: Free
Press.
Burgess, Thomas.
1913 Greeks in America. Boston; Sherman French
and Company.
This content downloaded from 128.228.0.65 on Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:39:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
FIRST AND SECOND GENERATION GREEKS IN CHICAGO 47
Fairchild, H. P.
1911 Greek Immigration to the United States. New
Heaven: Yale University Press.
Gordon, Milton.
1964 Assimilation in American Life: The Role of
Race , Religion and National Origin. New
York: Oxford University.
Huchinspn, E. P.
1956 Immigrants and Theirs Children: A Volume
in the Census Monograph Series. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inq.
Ianni, Fiances.
1957 “Residential and Occupational Mobility
as Indices of the Acculturation of an
Ethnic Group.” Social Forces 36 (October) :
7 . 65-72.
Lipset, Seymour, and Reinhard Bendix.
1963 Social Mobility in Industrial Society. Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California
Press.
Mistaras, Evangeline.
1950 “A Study of First and Second Generation
Greek Outmarriages in Chicago.” Unpublished:
A Master’s Thesis in the University
of Chicago Library, Department of
Sociology.
Price, Charles.
1963 Southern Europeans in Australia. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Rosen, Bernard.
1959 “Race, Ethnicity, and the Achievement
Syndrome.” American Sociological Review 24
(February): 47-60.
Saloutos, Theodore.
Î964 The Greeks in the Untied States. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Sanders, Irwin.
19b2 Rainbow in the Rock: The People of Rural
Greece. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Simirenko, Alex.
1964 Pilgrims y Colonists, and Frontiersmen: An
Ethenic Community in Transition. Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press.
Stycos, L. M.
1948 “The Spartan Greeks of Bridgetown.”
Common Ground 8 (Winter, Spring, Summer):
61-70, 24-34, 72-86.
Treudley, Mary.
1949 “Formal Organization and Americanization
Process, with Special Reference to the
Greeks of Boston.” American Sociological
Review 14 (February): 44-52.
Warner, Lloyd, et al.
1960 Social Class in America: A Manual of Procedure
for the Measurement of Social Status. New
York: Harper Torchbooks.
Warner, Lloyd, and L. Srole.
1945 The Social Systems of American Ethnic Groups.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Xenides, J. R.
1922 The Greeks in America . New York: George
H. Doran.
This content downloaded from 128.228.0.65 on Tue, 31 Mar 2020 21:39:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms