December 7, 2011

Assimilating in the wrong direction

There's a widespread assumption that assimilation cures all immigrant ailments, but that has long struck me as dubious American chest-beating. As a Los Angeleno, that New York - D.C. view never seemed a particularly good model for Mexican immigration. Lots of other cultures seem better at certain things than Americans, such as getting along with the group. Thus, it's not uncommon for American-born children of old immigrant groups to assimilate toward anti-social American norms. 

For example, the Chicano culture that was visible in L.A. by, say, 1972 after a long era of only modest immigration was largely made up of Mexicans born in East L.A. (to quote the title of Cheech Marin's funny 1980s movie), who had developed a distinctive local culture, proud, insular, and insolent. In many ways, they were highly assimilated, with an enduring affection for the teen culture of 1950s America: 1957 Chevies, doo-wop, greaser hair-dos, etc. Chicanos had both impressive accomplishments (e.g., the beautiful low-rider car) and downsides, such as a tendency to form violent gangs that were a mark of assimilation in America, of confidence compared to the beaten down peons of Mexico. The percentage of Mexican-American who made some some mark on the larger world may well have been higher back then than today after all the enormous influx from Mexico. 

Here's a summary of a new study (don't see the full paper online anywhere) on prevalence of "Conduct Disorder" (as measured by the DSM-IV) among 1) children in Mexico, 2) Mexican children born in America of parents of Mexican birth, and 3) Mexican children born in America to American-born parents. Bad conduct was worst in the kids whose parents were born in America and least prevalent among kids living in Mexico. So, in terms of conduct, we see downward assimilation.

"Conduct disorder" is one of those psychiatric catch-all categories where the symptoms describe the condition:
Children with conduct disorder tend to be impulsive, hard to control, and not concerned about the feelings of other people.
Symptoms may include:
Breaking rules without obvious reason
Cruel or aggressive behavior toward people or animals (for example: bullying, fighting, using dangerous weapons, forcing sexual activity, and stealing)
Failure to attend school (truancy -- beginning before age 13)
Heavy drinking and/or heavy illicit drug use
Intentionally setting fires
Lying to get a favor or avoid things they have to do
Running away
Vandalizing or destroying property
These children often make no effort to hide their aggressive behaviors. They may have a hard time making real friends.

Here's the summary:
The prevalence of conduct disorder (CD) appears to have increased substantially across generations of the Mexican-origin population after migration to the United States, however this increase was observed more for nonaggressive than aggressive symptoms of CD, according to a report in the December issue of Archives of General Psychiatry, one of the JAMA/Archives journals. 
"Conduct disorder (CD) is defined in the DSM-IV by persistent patterns of child or adolescent behavior involving aggression or other violations of age-appropriate norms that cause significant clinical impairment," the authors write as background information in the article. "Twin studies suggest that CD is under substantial genetic influence, which is stronger for aggressive than for nonaggressive symptoms. Studies of migrating populations offer an alternative strategy for separating environmental and genetic influences on psychiatric disorders." 
To examine variation in the prevalence of CD associated with migration from Mexico to the United States, Joshua Breslau, Ph.D., Sc.D., of the RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, and colleagues compared the prevalence of CD, different types of CD symptoms and CD symptom profiles across three generations of people of Mexican origin with increasing levels of exposure to American culture: families of origin of migrants (residing in Mexico), children of Mexican migrants raised in the United States, and Mexican-American children of U.S.-born parents. Data were collected using the same face-to-face interview with adults age 18 to 44 years in the household population of Mexico and the household population of people of Mexican decent in the United States. 
The authors found that compared with the risk in families of origin of migrants, risk of CD was lower in the general population of Mexico (Mexicans living in non-migrant households), but higher in children of Mexican-born immigrants who were raised in the United States. The highest risk of CD was found in Mexican-American children of U.S.-born parents. The authors also found that the association of CD with migration was much lower for aggressive symptoms than for nonaggressive symptoms. 
"The results suggest that there is a large difference in risk for CD between Mexicans in Mexico and people of Mexican decent in the United States. Only 2 percent of people in families of migrants met DSM-IV criteria for CM, but 11.5 percent of U.S.-born Mexican-Americans with at least one U.S.-born parent met these criteria," the authors write.

Let me point out that there are problems with using this methodology to examine nature-nurture questions. The three different groups in the study are not obviously genetically homogeneous. Recent immigrants from Mexico have tended to be more Indian than previously, while people in Mexico who stay in Mexico range from Indians completely out of touch with the modern world to the predominantly white ruling class.

Nonetheless, this study implication that nurture impacts Mexicans over the generations in America, and not always in a socially beneficial direction, seems reasonable to me.

Having traveled a modest amount in Mexico with my father when I was young, it seemed like a not badly behaved place. Mexico under the PRI was a police state, although only a small fraction of the large number of policemen were efficient and formidable. The populace was fairly cowed and meek, at least when sober. Bad driving and accidents were a major problem (presumably originating in Mexican fatalism), and petty graft was an annoyance, but outright crime wasn't a major problem for tourists. One reason was the cocaine trade bypassed Mexico back then, being routed from Colombia to Florida. Over time, the number of cops and private security with 5th grade educations carrying assault rifles increased as Mexicans wrestled the cocaine business into their hands, and the place got scarier. Thus, the weird anomaly that in our interconnected globalist yada yada, white Southern Californians don't drive to Mexico anymore the way they did in the bad old days before we all learned that "diversity" is the most sacred word in the language.

Joseph Wambaugh's book about illegal immigrants crossing the border near San Diego in the late 1970s, Lines and Shadows, confirms this impression: illegal immigrants from Mexico tended to be much more passive than Mexican-Americans. They came from a rural society where the caciques ruled and peons had no rights. The bandits who preyed on the illegally immigrating peons in the no-man's land on the American side of the border were Mexican-American gangbangers or fairly Americanized Tijuana criminals. The heroic San Diego cops who searched out gunfights with the banditos were also assimilated American-born Mexican-Americans.

In general, Americanization seems to make Mexicans less passive, more assertive, more aware of their rights. This has positive and negative implications.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

In general Americanization seems to make Mexicans less passive, more assertive....

Could this have something to do with religion? Mexico is just about 100% Catholic and the church has long been very powerful there. In America the Catholic church and its characteristics and influences are much less strong.

MC said...

"Conduct Disorder"?

I didn't know that had a real name. I've always jokingly called it "Bad Kid Syndrome"

LemmusLemmus said...

That's actually been a well-known phenomenon known to U.S. sociology from the 1930s onwards: The less integrated immigrant groups show less crime, and the more integrated children of immigrants are more involved in delinquency (though 3rd generation immigrants behaving most poorly is news to me). It's hard to sort out causality, but it seems likely that part of the reason for that is that many immigrants and their children live in the kinds of neighbourhoods where assimilation to the neighbourhood culture means that you behave in illegal ways. The technical term is "downward assimilation" (which, in some usages, encompasses more than just illegal behaviour).

Anonymous said...

I read Wambaugh's "Lines and Shadows" about 10 years ago, after reading that he is James Ellroy's favorite. It was superb, but it's interesting that I recall no ethnic chauvinism amongst the chicano cops. They were more interested in getting drunk and famous. Wambaugh didn't seem concerned about the cultural change brought on by illegals, but this was probably because LA in the late 70s still felt like a majoritarian city, as I recall. Ellroy, a diversity skeptic, has said that he doesn't recognize the LA of today compared to that of the 60s and 70s. When was the tipping point? Maybe the demonization of Gov. Wilson's support of Prop. 187?

Kylie said...

"In general, Americanization seems to make Mexicans less passive, more assertive, more aware of their rights. This has positive and negative implications."

What positive implications would this have for non-Hispanic white Americans?

Anonymous said...

I hope this story is brought up early and often in this campaign, because it *massive* I believe. Most (native) Americans detest sex-selective abortions against girls and yet they are *huge* in our immigrant population.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/284988/sex-selective-abortions-come-home-steven-w-mosher

rippedphreak said...

testing ... (please approve steve, checking if work network blocks this now that i've uninstalled their monitoring software)

Anonymous said...


I didn't know that had a real name. I've always jokingly called it "Bad Kid Syndrome"


NewSpeak is wary of normative value judgements encoded in classificatory literature. Silly.

Ed said...

Is "disorder" the new pc term for "being an asshole"?

Anonymous said...

The same reason that we don't push Mexicans to assimilate is the same reason that when they do assimilate, they assimilate to kitschy violent nihilism--our culture is badly damaged.

-Osvaldo M.

Anonymous said...

How do the rates of Conduct Disorder among these Mexican groups with different immigration histories compare to rates for African Americans?

Maya said...

The thing is that like ADHD, Conduct Disorder is a real condition that requires accommodations, but nowadays, lots of kids who don't have it get the label. A child with a CD is a future sociopath. In fact, the only reason Conduct Disorder is in the books is that we don't feel comfortable labeling children as sociopaths. Rest assured, nobody becomes a sicko who gets off on hurting others or completely lacks empathy at 18.People are born that way, and nothing can be done to change them. However, a lot of today's kids with a CD diagnosis could be cured with some discipline and a proper upbringing. That's why this study found that the violent CD tendencies are genetic while telling the librarian to go f*uck herself when she asks you to keep your voice down is somehow dependent on one's generation and environment.

JS said...

I wonder how much of this is historical alienation. In your race you wear your history on our sleeve, as it were. Just looking in the mirror shows a latino or african-american that they don't possess the same history and belong to the same historical traditions as whites. If assimilation is coming to conceive of a nation's history as ones own, and race forever shows you that this isn't true, then assimilation is impossible resulting in persistent alienation.

Wido Incognitus said...

The most obvious kind of assimilation is the ability to understand English better than your parents.
Anyway, this is a decent blog because it is open about differences between people without hating whatever is different from oneself or ignoring the many causes of one effect.

Chicago said...

The second and third generation have lost the drive and willingness to work the jobs that their families did. They don't have the brains or educational background to enter the professions. They'll just become a large stagnant class of people that'll become increasingly problematic.
Next, people like McCain will advocate importing people from elsewhere in the world who will do the jobs the Mexicans won't do.

Anonymous said...

JS SAID.....

If assimilation is coming to conceive of a nation's history as one's own, and race forever shows you that this isn't true, then assimilation is impossible resulting in persistent alienation.

I really think you have hit the nail right on the head, here. This is probably why immigration should be restricted as much as possible to people who look, or can pass for looking, like the majority of the peopel in a country. I also imagine the situation is far worse in countries like Europe with history going back milleniums.

Anonymous said...

A few thoughts if I may;

Could there be a racial schism? Do lighter-skinned Mexicans assimilate better, or more, then darker-skinned ones? Beyond complexion, lighter-skinned Mexicans would be more European and presumably have higher I.Q's then darker (more Indian) ones.

Another thought. Mexicans are, except for French-Canadians in Quebec moving into New England, the only ethnic group in America who move to the U.S. from a country geographically contiguous to the USA. A Pole or Japanese or Armenian for example has a home country thousands of miles away, and even with modern communications and travel, that is still a factor. Does the proximity of Mexico reduce or retard assimilation? And if so, to what extent?

Anonymous said...

When I see a discussion like this, I always think of atheists who think the world would be a panacea without religion.

Regardless of how religious these folks are, do we think that if they all lost their religion, they would rapidly become more civil, rational, intelligent and autodidactic?

I mean, does anyone really think that would happen?

Okay, so my point is that these folks just do better when the expectations are clear, and the consequences harsh and certain. Does that require religion? Well, no, but religious indoctrination does help with the expectations part because unlike schooling, it never ends.

Seismic Puppy said...

"white Southern Californians don't drive to Mexico anymore the way they did in the bad old days"

Why bother going to Mexico when Mexico came to them?

Seismic Puppy said...

Maybe this sort of thing should be called 'ass-imitating'.

Reg Cæsar said...

In general Americanization seems to make Mexicans less passive, more assertive....

Could this have something to do with religion? Mexico is just about 100% Catholic and the church has long been very powerful there.


Someone needs to take a tour of Boston, Providence, Nassau County, Hoboken, Philadelphia, Buffalo, Cleveland, Chicago and Milwaukee. He's obviously never met an Irish- or Italian-American!

Mexico is far from a "100% Catholic" country. The upper crust is wholly laïcist, and most of the rest are crypto-pagans. Maybe the middle class is genuinely Catholic, but good luck in your search for that demographic.

Anonymous said...

The first reasonable argument FOR multiculturalism I have ever heard.

Anonymous said...

Why bother going to Mexico when Mexico came to them?

Are you familiar with the final scene from The Shawshank Redemption?

Hipster [USA] Californians used to go to Baja California - for sport fishing, sailing, snorkling, surfing, etc - the way that East Coasters used to head to Daytona or Ft Lauderdale for Spring Break & some beach blanket bingo.

Nowadays, a gringo trip to Baja could very well end in a Daniel-Pearl-ing.

Anonymous said...

"The second and third generation have lost the drive and willingness to work the jobs that their families did. They don't have the brains or educational background to enter the professions. They'll just become a large stagnant class of people that'll become increasingly problematic.
Next, people like McCain will advocate importing people from elsewhere in the world who will do the jobs the Mexicans won't do."

I disagree. They did not just lose the good work gene, any more than Americans did. The next wave of immigrants is simply displacing them from youth employment opportunities and the ability to form such social networks, and that is what is hurting them, as well as Americans for that matter.

Noah172 said...

"Nowadays, a gringo trip to Baja could very well end in a Daniel-Pearl-ing."

Yes. Catholic Latin America has long had a deep strain of anti-Scots-Irishism.

Could make for a good Angelina Jolie movie.

Anonymous said...

Nowadays, a gringo trip to Baja could very well end in a Daniel-Pearl-ing.

Ugh.

I was just re-reading that sentence, and it dawned on me that that could very well have been the sort of thing that a Roman man would have said to a Roman boy, circa the late 4th Century A.D.: "When I was a lad, all the hipster Romans would vacation in Andalusia - in Marbella, or Malaga - but nowadays, a Roman who ventured into southern Spain would likely get captured by the Visigoths and sold into slavery [if he even survived at all]."

Anonymous said...

Yes. Catholic Latin America has long had a deep strain of anti-Scots-Irishism.

No - my point was that if a cartel soldier sees a gringo he doesn't like, then he's just as likely to behead the gringo as to [merely] gut it.

Anthony said...

@Kylie:

"In general, Americanization seems to make Mexicans less passive, more assertive, more aware of their rights. This has positive and negative implications."

What positive implications would this have for non-Hispanic white Americans?


This makes the Mexican worker more expensive to hire.

Jack Amok said...

Immigrants forming ethnic gangs certainly didn't start with Mexicans. Irish and Italian gangs are old, old tropes. But there are two differences today with Mexican immigrants. One is the "borderlands" phenomenom where they retain closer connection with the old country (couple with some lingering claims to the territory itself). But the second difference is paths upward.

They're different now. Back when waves of Irish and Italian immigrants were comming in, gangs were pretty much a dead end path upward. Legitimate business, legitimate careers were far better paths to happiness for amiericanized children of immigrants. Today, not so much.

VDH writes about immigrants in the Central Valley ignoring the blizzard of paperwork needed to legally run any sort of buiness in California and doing okay, while White residents dutifully try to follow the law, get ground down under the regulatory and tax burden, give up, and move out of state.

We're going to start seeing CD problems with everyone in the US of every ethnic background soon, because we're training kids that following the rules is a sucker's bet.